Gavin Arvizo: The Only Child Michael Jackson Ever Hated?

A Picture CAN Be Worth A Thousand Words...In Some Totally Unexpected Ways
A Picture CAN Be Worth A Thousand Words…In Some Totally Unexpected Ways

“One day he told me, ‘God forgive me, and don’t tell Katherine I ever said this, but I hate that kid. I so hate that kid…Part of me thinks that’s not right. You shouldn’t hate. But then I think, I can’t help it. I hate that kid for what he did to me.  My therapist is telling me that I need to get real and feel what I feel, not suppress it like I usually do. Well, how I feel is that I hate that kid. I do.'”-Michael Jackson, as quoted in The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story 1958-2009 by J. Randy Taraborrelli.

For a man who befriended hundreds of children in his lifetime, who helped thousands; who donated millions of dollars to charitable children’s causes; who worked tirelessly most of his adult life to promote causes that benefitted children; who advocated for children’s rights to the point that his dedication became almost saint-like in its zeal, Gavin Arvizo has a unique distinction among them. He just may be the only child Michael Jackson ever admitted to hating, at least if we are to believe this account related by Taraborelli. Admittedly, it’s a second-hand account passed on from a source who “claims” to have heard it straight from the man, but nevertheless, I don’t doubt its authenticity. Michael was no saint, after all, and after what he was put through by Gavin Arvizo and his scheming family, he certainly had every reason to hate “that kid.”

But today, I want to take a look at what transpired in this so-called friendship even before it got to that point. There exists a persistent media myth of Michael as a man who had many “special friends” among a select group of boys. There is some partial truth mixed into the myth. Michael did form many enduring friendships with some of the young men who idolized him-friendships that lasted well into these young mens’ adulthoods, despite some claims that he tended to lose interest as the boys matured. Over the years, a lot of twisted beliefs have been purported regarding those friendships, but I’m standing by a firm belief, based both on strong theory and fact, that the nature of these friendships have been much exaggerated. However, that is a topic I will take up again when I resume the Wade Robson series.

Aside From Feeling Sorry For Him Because He Had Cancer, All Indications Seem To Point Towards Gavin Arvizo As A Kid Whom Michael Didn't Even Particularly LIKE-Let Alone Molest!
Aside From Feeling Sorry For Him Because He Had Cancer, All Indications Seem To Point Towards Gavin Arvizo As A Kid Whom Michael Didn’t Even Particularly LIKE-Let Alone Molest!

However, if we look at the history of his acquaintance with the Arvizo family, it becomes apparent that Gavin Arvizo was never a “special friend” of Michael’s. In fact, based on what I have come to know, I believe it is entirely reasonable to assume that this was never a kid that Michael even particularly liked; a kid he never wished to even get close to, let alone one he would have ever attempted to molest. That may sound cold, but based on what I have researched, what I have been told, and even from Gavin’s own words, I believe it is true. Aside from the fact that Michael paid for Gavin’s cancer treatment (a goodwill gesture Michael extended to many such kids in need) there doesn’t exist beyond that any proof that Michael much wanted anything to do with this kid-or his family-past that point. He was kind enough to pay for the boy’s treatments; he invited this family into his home when they had no place else to go; he even bought (or gave them) a car, which, like everything else, they then abused to the point that it was no longer serviceable. 

In short, though Michael Jackson may have had many such close friends among the young boys of his acquaintance, Gavin Arvizo-the only kid to ever bring Michael Jackson to court-was not one of them. Ironic when you think about it. Maybe a little too ironic. Just maybe, that was part of the whole problem.

When Gavin Arvizo got married last November, an explosion of  well-timed articles by notorious Michael Jackson hater Diane Dimond suddenly appeared in many major media outlets. I don’t have permission from Dimond to reprint her articles here (nor do I intend to seek it), but nor do I wish to give her the satisfaction of increasing traffic hits to her apologist propaganda for Gavin and this family, a family that she obviously chose to become personal friends with long ago, thus eradicating even the slightest veneer of objectivity on her part when it comes to this case. In short, I won’t be reprinting her lies here, nor linking to them. But that being said, most fans and regular readers here are familiar enough with the details of those articles, in which young Gavin was painted as a victim, as a brave survivor of cancer and child abuse; as a martyr and hero (the only “victim” courageous enough to take on Michael Jackson in court; a good religious boy so selfless that he refuses even now to take advantage of the “six figure” amounts he has supposedly been offered; a pure soul so forgiving that even when the wedding dj “unknowingly” plays a Michael Jackson song, he just shrugs it all off good-naturedly and continues to dance, as if to say, “Aw, shucks. Well, it’s all good.”

Geez, could we just hang a halo on this guy’s head and be done with already? I already feel like I need a barf bag, and those are just the highlights.

Would You Dance To The Music Of The Man Who Molested You? At Your Wedding?
Would You Dance To The Music Of The Man Who Molested You? At Your Wedding?

But I will accede a few things about Gavin Arvizo. Yes, he is a cancer survivor, and I would certainly never begrudge any child who has survived cancer the right to a happily-ever-after end to his life. In fact, I hope he is able to achieve that (I am Christian enough to believe everyone deserves some measure of Grace, and Gavin Arvizo has had a pretty tough life). Yes, I believe he was a victim and an abused child-but not a victim of Michael Jackson. His abuse came at the hands of his own family, including a father who physically beat him and a con artist mother who manipulated him from an early age to lie for her. In fact, Gavin’s psychological abuse at the hands of his manipulative (and most likely mentally ill) mother was still causing him such emotional stress that as late as 2004, it was said that he still feared that “the bad people from JC Penney’s” would come to get him and his siblings (Janet had involved her kids in a lawsuit over an alleged sexual assault by JC Penney employees). And in July of 2007, a story ran in The New York Daily News that claimed Janet had turned her back on her son for apparently failing to do a better job of convincing the jury in 2005. However, oddly enough, the story has disappeared and no links given to it seem to work. I was only aware if it myself after reading this 2010 post from the Smoke and Mirrors website:

http://smokeandmirrorsmj.blogspot.com/p/untold-story.html

However, it wouldn’t be a shocker for me if The New York Daily News has deleted the story.  As always, the media has gone out of its way to protect the so-called “victims” of Michael Jackson, while thinking nothing of dragging Michael’s name through the mud-a fact even more interesting when you consider the media villification of Mia and Dylan Farrow, a subject that has already been hashed out on many blogs. Clearly, the idea that the media automatically sides with the perceived “victims” in these cases is a myth. It depends on who is being accused.

But given what we know of Janet Arvizo’s mental history, the story is most likely true. Oddly enough, Janet was not even mentioned in the wedding articles ( Did she even attend? Was she even invited?). If true, this would be in perfect keeping with the pattern that has emerged in both accusation cases, since Jordan Chandler effectively “divorced” himself from his parents and had very little to do with them after the ordeal of the Michael Jackson allegations.

UPDATE (3/22/14): Janet Arvizo DID attend the wedding, as confirmed via the wedding photos.  (See link below in the comments section). 

But whatever may have transpired privately, the public Gavin has never wavered in his claims and has stood staunchly by the lies he was coaxed to believe-not only by his family, but an entire prosecution team.  Gavin’s childhood was not unlike that of poor Sartoris Snopes in William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning,” a child who is forced to back his con artist father in every scheme until he finally realizes his only chance to save himself and his own soul is to run away, leaving his family behind and starting a new life on his own. Not exactly an easy thing to do when you’re just a kid-in that time or any other.

Unfortunately, Gavin Arvizo never seems to have had any such degree of moral consciousness or awakening where his own mother was concerned-or if he did, he certainly never acted on it. The truth is that children like Sartoris Snopes probably only exist in fiction. In real life, children are usually apt to become what their parents mold them into. This certainly seems to have been the case with Gavin Arvizo. And it is enough to mitigate any sympathy that I might be inclined to feel toward him. Let’s not forget that by the time this whole mess went to trial, Gavin was fifteen years old-still a minor, yes. But old enough to be quite aware of the charade that was going on, and his own part in it.

The fact that Gavin’s claims of molestation were totally ripped to shreds in the courtroom, resulting in Michael’s acquittal on all counts, still leaves one puzzling question: If Michael didn’t molest Gavin, then why did Gavin so willingly put both himself and Michael through this ordeal? Could it have been spite of another kind?

I believe that is not only a possibility, but the most logical conclusion.

The evidence has shown that Gavin not only sought out and wanted Michael Jackson’s friendship, but even wanted him as a father figure (unless, of course, this was simply more of Janet Arvizo’s manipulation, which is possible). The kids were instructed to call Michael “Daddy.” According to what Michael said in his Shmuley Boteach interviews, he didn’t mind it at first:

SB: Do you feel that when you speak to people like Gavin, part of the pain goes away for them?

MJ: Absolutely. Because every time I talk to him he is in better spirits. When I spoke to him last night he said, “I need you. When are you coming home?” I said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I need you Michael.” Then he calls me “Dad.” I said, “You better ask your Dad if it is ok to call me that.” He shouts, “Dad, is it ok if I call Michael, ‘Dad?”‘ and he says, “Yes, no problem, whatever you want.” Kids always do that. It makes me feel happy that they feel that comfortable.-(Excerpted from The Michael Jackson Tapes, by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach). 

However, accounts I have heard from many who knew Michael contradict this. At any rate, he definitely seemed to resent being called “Daddy” by Janet Arvizo’s children as his relationship with this family soured, and especially once he began to realize that the Arvizo children calling him “Daddy” actually translated in this family’s minds to “Sugar Daddy.”

Additionally, Michael had children of his own by this point, so perhaps the word “Dad” had lost some of its appeal and luster. In other words, he didn’t quite have the driving need anymore to hear it from other kids besides his own. And I honestly think by this point, his own kids were the only ones he wanted calling him “Daddy.”

I firmly believe that Gavin Arvizo, at one point, wanted a close relationship with Michael, like the ones he may have heard that Michael had with Macauley Culkin, Frank Cascio, Brett Barnes and others, and was deeply disappointed-and later embittered-when things didn’t work out that way.

But there was one important difference. Those were friendships built on mutual respect and trust. Macauley Culkin, for example, had his own money, and wasn’t some needy kid who was co-dependent on Michael’s affections. To be fair, of course, he also wasn’t a cancer victim from a dysfunctional family. (I think the Culkins were most likley dysfunctional in a different kind of way; show business families generally are, but at any rate, they were not a family dependent on Michael for money and “perks” so therein lies the difference).

However, it didn’t take Michael long to learn that both Gavin and his family were milking the “cancer victim” thing for all it was worth. It was also proven that this family had bilked many celebrities out of millions, even though the family had medical insurance that covered most of Gavin’s treatments.

As The Cancer Went Into Remission, Gavin's True Colors Began To Show.
As The Cancer Went Into Remission, Gavin’s True Colors Began To Show.

What’s more, as soon as the illness was in remission and some of the harsher effects of the treatments had worn off, Gavin’s true personality started to emerge. From many accounts, ranging from Neverland employees to witnesses in the courtoom, it seems that Gavin Arvizo was just not a very likeable kid. Spoiled and prone to temper tantrums when he didn’t get his way, Gavin seems by most accounts to have been a testy and temperamental child who had all the early markings of a trouble maker. Court testimony would reveal quite a different story from the innocent little angel who was being depicted in the media, and even in the Living With Michael Jackson documentary. Instead, he was revealed as a bit of a hoodlum who vandalized property, terrorized the staff, acted as though he had free reign of the property, wrecked golf carts (an act he and his brother Star both seemed quite adept at), broke into the wine cellar, and on at least one occasion, were caught by one of Michael’s cousins masturbating to pornography that they had gotten access to by breaking into Michael’s private quarters. For sure, Gavin was not the innocently naive boy about sex and sexual matters that much of his testimony relied upon:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/121004pltmotadmprior.pdf

You know, I’m not going to judge Gavin’s character now because I don’t know him. Maybe adulthood has brought some level of maturity. But apparently, the Gavin Arvizo that Michael Jackson knew as a kid was one conniving little manipulator-one that Michael quickly came to see through.

It’s a complex issue because, on the one hand, here you have this kid who does seem to be desperately seeking a father figure-and some much needed guidance. Perhaps Michael tried to be as patient as he could, but in the end, his patience wore out. He had to start distancing himself from this family for his own sanity and peace of mind-and perhaps to preserve what was left of his home before these little terrorists wrecked it completely and drove away all the staff!

Before things turned sour, this rare video footage was shot of Michael showing Gavin about the grounds of Neverland. I find the body language of this video somewhat interesting. Michael is affectionate enough with Gavin, but his demeanor is very reserved and uncharacteristically withdrawn (if one notes how he usually behaved around kids). It seems that Gavin initiates much of the physical contact, such as the hand holding or locking of arms (watch at 5:13). Michael reciprocates, of course, but only after Gavin has made the initial gesture. Otherwise, Michael seems to be keeping a distance throughout the tour, usually walking ahead or to the right. Although he is heard joking around with Gavin and Star at about 6:01, his whole demeanor throughout this video seems perfunctory and rather cool. I get the feeling he was doing this more to satisfy the child’s whims than his own. Why was it being filmed? Who knows. Michael tended to document most everything in his life; most likely, he intended to use this as some sort of promotional footage down the road, just as the footage with Ryan White eventually became a very smart promotional strategy. (While Michael certainly genuinely cared for all of the sick children he helped through the years there was no argument that it was also very good for the image). Or perhaps this was merely private footage that was leaked, but I suspect there was most likely some motive behind it. Michael had also learned by this time that it paid to keep a record of everything-just in case, well, you know, someone gets it in their head to bring a lawsuit. Or to make an accusation. Which, of course, was bound to end in a lawsuit of some sort. Having most of your life on camera was one sure way to hedge a lot of it.

No one ever said it was a “normal” life.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBH6ap7GS30[/tube]

But if we pay close attention to the body language of Michael and Gavin in this casual clip, we can see there is none of the easy camraderie that we see, for example, in similar clips of Michael and Ryan White:

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgwvTXgeyXA[/tube]

Or here:

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raw96oUPGLk[/tube]

In other words, the impression I get is that Michael didn’t ever seem especially comfortable or at ease with Gavin, and his interactions with him seem more like fulfilling an obligation as the kid’s host. That seems cold, but is it possible that Michael simply never took to this kid-perhaps sensed something “off” about him, and was trying to create distance?

What we do know, based on Gavin’s own court testimony, is that over time he became bitter-not because Michael had sexually abused him, but for quite the opposite reason- because Michael ceased wanting anything to do with him, and became increasingly remote. There is even a story, revealed during Gavin’s court testimony that once, Gavin had been told Michael was not around-only to have the embarrassing and rather awkward experience of  accidentally “bumping into” him on the Neverland property. By that time, the message was loud and clear that Michael was avoiding him. Gavin would recount this incident as one that “broke his heart.” But while this statement makes Michael seem very cold and poor Gavin as a victim, let’s not forget all that Michael had done-which was certainly above and beyond-to save Gavin’s life and to ease his family’s life during this difficult time. Michael had extended kindness and lavish hospitality upon this family, only to be repaid by having his property vandalized, his employees terrorized, and his credit cards maxed as Gavin’s family helped themselves to thousands of dollars worth of shopping sprees. In short, how much did Michael owe Gavin Arvizo or this family beyond what he had already done?

William Faulkner's Classic Story "Barn Burning" Tells The Story Of A Young Boy Who Faces A Moral Dilemma-Whether To Continue To Lie And Support His Father In All Of His Various Schemes And Crimes, Or To Run Away In Order To Save His Own Soul. It Is A Story Gavin Might Have Related To. But Fiction And Real Life Are Two Entirely Different Things.
William Faulkner’s Classic Story “Barn Burning” Tells The Story Of A Young Boy Who Faces A Moral Dilemma-Whether To Continue To Lie And Support His Father In All Of His Various Schemes And Crimes, Or To Run Away In Order To Save His Own Soul. It Is A Story Gavin Might Have Related To. But Fiction And Real Life Are Two Entirely Different Things.

Intense hate is only the flipside of intense love, and it seems that in Gavin’s case he was a kid doggedly determined to be Michael’s shadow. And-here’s a fact that may surprise some of you!-he seemed to have an inclination to be very physically affectionate and touchy-touchy in a way that made MICHAEL intensely uncomfortable!

I have already pointed out that in the above video of Michael and Gavin at Neverland that it is clearly GAVIN-not Michael!-who initiates whatever physical contact is made between them, whether it be hand holding or walking arm in arm. We can see with our own eyes in this clip that Michael goes along with it and reciprocates-as most adults would-but never at any time is he the initiator of the contact. This is important in establishing the fact that IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, from sleeping in Michael’s bedroom to the infamous “hand holding” segment shown in the Bashir doc, Gavin was actually the aggressor (though in the case of the Bashir doc, there is some dispute as to whether Bashir himself was, in fact, responsible for that shot. I will get to that incident in just a bit).

Frank Cascio describes how Gavin initially asked MICHAEL if he could sleep in his room:

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqBDXgbg5c[/tube]

Michael had actually been extra cautious about allowing strange kids access to his room since what had happened with Jordan Chandler in ’93. If it had been me, I think I would have kept my resolve with a firm and unequivocal “no.” But Michael had always been a softie when it came to kids. It’s too bad that the firm resolve and distancing that he later took with Gavin may have been a case of too little, too late.

And, from Gavin’s court testimony, here is another incident that describes Gavin VOLUNTARILY resting his head on Michael’s shoulder-a gesture he was apparently prone to doing, with no prompting on Michael’s part.

19 Q. Now, you talked yesterday about someone

20 named Brett Ratner. Do you remember that.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And he was working on a Rush Hour movie,

23 right.

24 A. Yes, he was the director for both of them.

25 Q. And you met Brett Ratner at Neverland one

26 time, right.

27 A. Yes, he came to Neverland once.

28 Q. And you saw him in the library, right. 2029

1 A. Michael and him were in the library, and

2 they told me to go there.

3 Q. You saw him in the library with Michael,

4 correct.

5 A. They told me to go in there.

6 Q. Okay. And you sat down next to Michael

7 Jackson, didn’t you.

8 A. I sat on the couch. I sat on this red couch

9 and Michael was sitting here on the seat, and Brett

10 Ratner was sitting here also.

11 Q. At one point during that meeting, you rested

12 your head on Michael Jackson’s shoulder, didn’t you.

13 A. No. It was early in the morning, and I

14 was — we were sitting — he was sitting on another

15 chair.

16 Q. And you asked if you could go with Michael

17 and Brett Ratner to Florida, didn’t you.

18 A. I don’t remember asking that.

http://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/march-15th-2005-trial-analysis-gavin-arvizo-cross-examination-terry-flaa-jeff-klapakis-and-steve-robel-direct-examination-part-1-of-3/

Gavin denies the accusation, but even so, the pattern is consistent with many behaviors on Gavin’s part that we already know to be fact. Gavin would often use such ingratiating gestures toward Michael to build up for some huge favor he wanted to ask (note that in this case, he was said to have been begging to be taken along on a vacation to Florida with Michael and Brett Ratner).

Of course, Gavin’s exaggerated advancements of affection could have had a more sinister motive. The theory has been raised by some that the Arvizos may, in fact, have been plotting from the get-go to set Michael up. It’s possible although, I believe, a little far fetched. I am more inclined to believe that this was an idea that took hold once they were within Michael’s circle and the relationship turned sour. It would not explain, for example, why the Arvizos willingly left the picture until being called back for the Bashir doc. I think the idea took hold and grew in the aftermath of the Bashir doc, when the resultant media scrutiny both resulted in a further breakdown of the relationship and gave them the idea that not only could they make this accusation fly, they could even make it somewhat “plausible,” especially after consulting Larry Feldman, the attorney for the Chandlers. Let’s not forget that the Arvizos actually tried to sell the idea that Michael had only molested Gavin AFTER the documentary had aired, which is completely ludicrous considering this would have meant Michael only decided to molest Gavin after  the eyes of the world had turned on this relationship.

Only So That He Could Then Use The Footage As An Excuse To Narrate How Michael Was

The Arvizos had actually been out of Michael’s life for some time-and might have thankfully remained so-had it not been for the Martin Bashir doc “Living With Michael Jackson.” It was reportedly Bashir’s idea to get on film some of the children Michael had helped in the past, although it is possible this idea may have at least partially originated with Michael himself. Remember that at the time, Michael was hoping to use this documentary to help promote his idea of a National Children’s holiday. Michael was also under the impression, having been falsely led by Bashir, that the purpose of this documentary was to help rehabilitate his image. People would finally be allowed to see what Michael Jackson was all about-helping kids.

What would emerge as the most controversial aspect of that documentary-aside from Michael’s “What’s wrong with sharing your bed?” comment-was the shot of Gavin apparently “cuddling” with Michael. In the footage that sent many shock waves rippling, Gavin places his head on Michael’s shoulder and holds hands with him. Had this been the sickly, emaciated child of a couple of years ago, it might not have had quite the same effect. But this was a now apparently healthy kid who, for all purposes, was making goo-goo eyes at Michael for all America and the UK to see.

However, there was apparently much more to this footage than met the eye. We have already seen that Gavin tended to behave very affectionately toward Michael, even with no encouragement from Michael. And indeed, in the rebuttal video, Gavin is seen holding hands with his own mother just as he had with Michael! Of course, this part could very well have been staged but I’ve seen enough to convince me that this was a natural reaction of Gavin’s when he was around an adult he felt close to (or perhaps wished to manipulate). Also, note Janet’s uncharacteristic make-up and perfectly manicured nails when the camera zooms in for the close-up of their clasped hands-that was all courtesy of Michael Jackson’s expense!

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bez7QCXJJV4[/tube]

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUlDSoPzLLs[/tube]

It was revealed a few years ago that Bashir had actually coached Gavin to lay his head on Michael’s shoulder and hold his hand during that segment. Aphrodite Jones had mentioned this in several interviews, which apparently was information relayed to her by Thomas Mesereau. I asked her about this in 2010, and she not only confirmed that I had heard correctly, but also revealed for the first time the information she relays in this radio interview of Michael’s response: “Why is this kid leaning on me?”

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4uLCv26vx8[/tube]

Let’s go back and re-visit that segment of the Bashir doc. What I find interesting is how the segment featurng Gavin segues from a previous segment showing Michael taking a group of kids through Neverland. All of this builds up to Bashir’s voice over narration reminding viewers of the Chandler allegations ten years before, and stating he would have thought that Jackson had learned to be more cautious. He then goes on to say he was “appalled” to learn that children were still sleeping over at Neverland. What is ironic in this? Because it was actually BASHIR’S idea for Michael to have that busload of kids come in that day, just for the express purpose of having footage that would show Michael interacting with kids! The true story would be laughable if it hadn’t all turned out so tragic. What Martin Bashir (whose very agenda was to portray Michael as a suspected criminal from the get-go) discovered, much to his dismay, was a Neverland without kids! At least, other than Michael’s own, but that hardly suited the agenda that he had come prepared to “prove.” So he convinced Michael to bring in a busload of kids for the express purpose of filming his Neverland interactions with kids. Granted, this was a tradition that Michael had begun at Neverland some time ago, but there were no kids on that particular day. And often, Michael was not even on the premises when these under privileged kids came and went. But…on that day, because Bashir had specifically requested that he have kids to film at Neverland, Michael makes a call and has a busload come in. (I can’t help but feel a bit sorry for him in that footage; he doesn’t even look as if he feels particularly well that day, and he’s having to entertain these kids just so Bashir can get the footage he wants, never dreaming, of course, that the finished product would be played out with that sinister narrative voice over reminding viewers of the Chandler allegations).

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrcmLRyxMAU[/tube]

And the deceptive manipulation gets even better when the narration about kids “still sleeping over” cuts to Star and Gavin Arvizo, who-let’s not forget- had only been called back for the express purpose of filming this documentary!

But here’s where I want to go with this. If you watch this clip beginning at 9:01 you can see an interesting contrast between Michael’s and Gavin’s demeanor and overall body language. Whereas Gavin seems perfectly comfortable and natural holding hands with Michael. Michael clearly looks very uncomfortable and squirm-ish in the scene. Notice that his entire body and posture remains very stiff. Just as in the earlier footage from 2000, he seems to be maintaining a purposeful, physical distance from Gavin. It’s akin to the adoring partner who tries to cuddle on a sofa, while the disinterested party tries as surreptiously as possible to scoot to the opposite end-without being blatantly obvious, of course.

In fact, the more I watch this footage the more convinced I am that Michael most likely was set up in this scene. Obviously, he wasn’t going to be rude and push Gavin away with the camera rolling (in fact, I doubt he would have done so even had no cameras been rolling) but his discomfiture is quite obvious. It makes it seem even more plausible to me that he probably asked the question, “Why is this kid leaning on me?” Even if he never spoke the words, you can tell he certainly must have been thinking them!

Whatever the case, Michael and Gavin would both have their share of fall-out over that staged scene. For Michael, it would result in a nightmare of media scrutiny and a criminal investigation. For Gavin, it led to school bullying and intrusive harrassment as the pressure increased from all sides to “confess”…Something. Anything.

8 Q. Now, when you went back to school after you

9 left Neverland Ranch – okay. –

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. — March and April, you were at John

12 Burroughs, correct.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did — what was — what was it like when you

15 went back to school.

16 A. All the kids would laugh at me and try to

17 push me around and stuff, and say, “That’s the kid

18 that got raped by Michael Jackson,” and stuff like

19 that.

20 Q. Did — what was your reaction to that.

21 A. I would sometimes not say anything and just

22 walk away. And if they got close enough, sometimes

23 I would fight them. After they hit me first,

24 because I didn’t like to throw the first punch,

25 because I believe that — I mean

http://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/march-15th-2005-trial-analysis-gavin-arvizo-cross-examination-terry-flaa-jeff-klapakis-and-steve-robel-direct-examination-part-1-of-3/

Despite all of the bullying and media scrutiny after the Bashir doc, Gavin Arvizo was at first reluctant to go along with his family’s scheme to bring charges against Michael. So what made him change his mind? Let’s not forget that teenagers are still very emotionally vulnerable people. If you have enough adults around you hammering and chipping away at you, sooner or later you’re either going to give in, or break.

I believe strongly that what happened in Gavin’s case was that here was a man he had once idolized and looked up to, who had seemed in Gavin’s eyes to have turned on him. In Gavin’s mind, he had taken a lot of flack for being Michael’s friend, and couldn’t understand why the man he called “Daddy” had now turned on him. Perhaps he was genuinely unaware that his own bratty behavior and the questionable motives of his family had led to that distancing; that rather than being genuinely grateful for the help they had been given, their sense of entitlement had grown exponentially. Apparently, from all I have gathered, they were doing more than just taxing Michael financially. They had become a bit of an emotional burden as well, demanding that he fulfill some role that he had never been obligated to fill in the first place, as not just a financial provider but a surrogate parent as well.

I'm Convinced This Was An Abandonment Issue, Not A Molestation Issue
I’m Convinced This Was An Abandonment Issue, Not A Molestation Issue

Could it be that Gavin’s eventual resentment of Michael Jackson had more to do with abandonment issues than any supposed molestation? I am at the very least 99% convinced that this is the case. Or at least I believe it is the factor that planted the seed. Eventually, I believe that somewehere along the way-between the brainwashing of Sneddon, Feldman, Zonen, and, of course, his good friend Diane Dimond-Gavin became genuinely convinced that, even if Michael hadn’t molested him, that he was a bad man who deserved to be punished. After all of these years of the pestilence that has been poured into his ear from these factions, I’m sure he has convinced himself quite well that Michael must have been guilty of something.

13 Q. Okay. Gavin, I just have one last question

14 to ask you: Yesterday in response to Mr. Mesereau’s

15 questions, you told him that Mr. Jackson was like a

16 father figure to you; is that correct.

17 A. Michael Jackson.

18 Q. Yeah.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And that you thought he was one of the

21 coolest guys in the world, correct.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And that you admired him.

24 A. Well, I only admire God, but he was a pretty

25 cool guy.

26 Q. How do you feel about Mr. Jackson now in

27 light of what he did to you.

28 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. 352; relevance; 2073

1 leading.

2 THE COURT: Overruled.

3 THE WITNESS: I don’t really like him

4 anymore. I don’t think he’s really that deserving

5 of the respect that I was giving him and as the

6 coolest guy in the world.

http://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/march-15th-2005-trial-analysis-gavin-arvizo-cross-examination-terry-flaa-jeff-klapakis-and-steve-robel-direct-examination-part-1-of-3/

But the one thing he will probably never confess-not even to himself, I would suspect-is that his resentment of Michael really began that day he was told Mr. Jackson was nowhere around, only to bump into him on the Neverland grounds. There is a part of me that pities a child who looks up to a man, who calls him “Daddy” and then has to find out the hard way that this man is actually trying to ease him out of his life. But given what we know of the Arvizos and their behavior at Neverland-as well as a past history of grifting that Michael was slowly becoming savvy to-we can’t entirely blame him for doing what he had to do. In a way, perhaps this whole, unfortunate case really claimed TWO victims-Michael, whose life would ultimately be ruined over it, and Gavin, whose innocence and ability to believe had to have at least become somewhat tarnished as a result of this experience.

But while I can feel somewhat sorry for Gavin the child, Gavin the man is a different story. He has the adult ability now to look back in hindsight and realize right from wrong. Perhaps we can argue that Michael’s way of dealing with the situation was cold, but over the years, Michael (whose life we must remember had not been “normal” since age ten) had learned early that it was sometimes the only way of coping with a bad situation. If you want a bad seed out of your life, you nip it before it even has a chance to become a bud. I would imagine the situation with Jordan Chandler had further fueled his distrust of too-clinging kids and parents with dubious motives.

Of course Gavin will probably never accept himself as that potential bad seed. I believe his view of Michael is still that of the thwarted child who has never been able to forget a promise that, in his mind, somehow went unfulfilled.

The only thing that still leaves an unsettling question in my mind is…why did Michael agree to bring the Arvizos back into his life? Surely there were many other children he had helped that he could have chosen to call in for the documentary. As Aphrodite Jones stated in the above interview, he had considered Dave Dave, the boy who was severely burned by his father. I’m sure there were many others who would have gladly accepted this offer. Why Gavin? The question is a bit of a mystery although perhaps, in the end, the sheer miraculousness of his recovery was incentive enough. Gavin, at the time, was the best example of how love and faith (along with a lot of financial help) can create a miracle. He was the best example of what Michael was innocently hoping to prove with this documentary-while also, perhaps, best fitting the bill for Bashir’s own ulterior motives.

Did Gavin ultimately feel used, perhaps even betrayed by Michael? I certainly think that we can’t rule it out as a possibility, and again, this may go a long way towards understanding how and why Gavin ultimately came to be so bitter towards a man who never touched him sexually, to the point that he was able to convince himself that Michael Jackson was a man unworthy of “the respect” he claims he had once felt for him.

But there are some things we have to keep in perspective. If Michael “used” Gavin to promote his own image, it perhaps bears no greater  culpability than the amount of “using” this family did to him in terms of milking every advanatge that could possibly be gained by this relationship-and in the end, destroying his life. Whatever the ends to the means, there is one fact we have to keep uppermost in mind. Michael didn’t have to take on the expense of this kid’s cancer treatments, nor invite them into his home and his life.  In the end, whatever you can say, Michael and God were directly responsible for giving Gavin his life. Did Michael really “owe” the Arvizos anything more beyond that? It’s great that Gavin still credits God’s role in saving him. But it is despicable the way he has treated the man who was, in essence, the other half of that healing team.

While this post may be an attempt to understand Gavin’s motives, it is by no means an excuse for them. It would be nice to say that, regardless of who was using who or who betrayed who, that in the end the score was evened between Michael and Gavin Arvizo. But that is hardly the case. While Michael lies in a tomb in Forest Lawn, Gavin Arvizo dances to MJ tunes at his wedding.

I’m sure in his mind he perceives this as a just and fitting end. At any rate, even now-nine years after “The Trial of the Century”-he certainly has enough cheerleaders in his corner to convince him that this is the case. This perceived sense of “justice winning out in the end” was certainly the entire slant of Diane Dimond’s many articles “celebrating” the event. But the reality depends on which side of the glass one is looking from. Gavin’s story did not convince a jury, and to this day, even many of the most cynical, diehard Michael Jackson haters have expressed genuine doubt over this case. While it may be true to say that Gavin was the only kid who faced Michael Jackson down in court (a fact is a fact, after all) Gavin also must live every day with the fact that his story wasn’t believed, and that the man who helped make it possible for Gavin to live to see his wedding day has paid the ultimate price. Diane Dimond didn’t bother telling that part of the tale. She never will.

Gavin Arvizo may have survived cancer, and he may have survived a dysfunctional raising. But in that regard, Gavin is no more or less courageous than the many hundreds of kids who beat those odds every single day. He managed to beat those odds, at least in part, with the help of a man he later turned on. His motives appeared to have been as genuinely muddled and confused as the case itself.

I don’t know how much credence to give the Taraborelli source. However, Michael was human and as prone to human emotion as any of us. “Hate” is a strong word, and even in this context, we see that Michael was reluctant to use it. But if he was acting on a therapist’s advice, it was advice intended to make him finally embrace his honest emotions, rather than, as he said, suppressing them “like I always do.”

Ultimately, Gavin Arvizo will be viewed as either a brave, unsung hero (if you buy the version Diane Dimond is selling) or as the villain that he is to most MJ fans. But the truth, as they always say, is probably closer to the middle. Gavin chose the most vicious way possible to lash out and “pay back” the man he felt had turned his back on him. At the time, perhaps he failed to realize that the greatest and most precious gift Michael had given him-his life-should have been one that far outweighed all other petty matters.

To be the only child that Michael ever hated is no easy feat. It took hard work and dedication to earn that title, for we know it was not a title easily won. But Michael would have been expressing these thoughts on the flipside of everything that Gavin Arvizo had put him through.

But hatred aside (which, as I’ve said, is a pretty strong word) I have come to the conclusion that Michael never even particularly liked Gavin Arvizo, at least once Gavin had gotten better and his real personality started to show itself. I believe that Michael engaged in a deliberate campaign to distance himself from Gavin and his family. At best, Gavin was a clingy, overly needy child who demanded attention and special favors. Perhaps if he could have been isolated at an early age from the influence of his mother, there might have still been hope for him. But by the time he met Michael, the damage to his personality was already complete. And thus, Michael Jackson, the man who had spent so much of his adult life “adopting” families, effectively rejected Janet Arvizo and her kids. There would be hell to pay, and indeed there was.

Only Gavin knows what was going through his mind as his hired wedding dj spun “The Way You Make Me Feel.” I would like to think that what he “felt” was at least some twinge of guilt or shame. Or something, even if only all of those old repressed feelings of betrayal and resentment. But the far more likely truth is that Diane Dimond got it right (this one thing, at least) when she said all it elicited from him was an indifferent shrug. Of course, her spin would be that Gavin has moved on from the painful memories of nine years ago.

The far more likely truth is that Gavin, true to his nature, is a man who doesn’t waste much time thinking about the consequences of his actions, especially in regard to how they affect others. “Looking out for number one” is a lesson his mother Janet taught him well.

As painful as it may be to accept, the most likely response that Gavin felt to hearing “The Way You Make Me Feel” was to feel absolutely nothing at all. In all likelihood, Gavin will raise a family and have a respectable career. He will spend as little time as possible thinking about Michael Jackson, and when he does, it will be with the conviction that he was justified in his actions. But mostly, Michael Jackson, the man who stepped in and saved his life when so many other celebrities had turned his family away, will just be an unpleasant blimp on those accomplishments. Something he would probably just as soon forget if it weren’t for his good friends like Diane Dimond and Ron Zonen who continue to make him the martyr that perhaps he never wanted to be.

Michael Could Forgive Most Anything Except For A Selfish Nature. He Was Critical Of It In Himself; Even Moreso In Others.
Michael Could Forgive Most Anything Except For A Selfish Nature. He Was Critical Of It In Himself; Even Moreso In Others.

Michael could forgive most anything except a selfish nature. He was hard on that quality in himself; even harder when he perceived it in others. Could it be that Michael saw in Gavin the quality that would compel him to bite the very hand that fed him? Perhaps. Personally, I find it revolting that Gavin would have reacted the way he did to the teasing at school after Michael had saved his life. You would think he would have been willing to whale hell out of any kid who said anything about Michael. Of course, trying to predict or second guess what goes through a teenager’s mind at any time is a risky venture. Peer pressure is a power never to be under estimated. But whatever the case, it was clear that by the time all was said and done, Michael and Gavin had clearly become two parties locked in mutual hatred, distrust, and loss of respect. Perhaps they both saw in each other some qualities that were less than admirable. But keep in mind, this is not about Michael Jackson the perfect (or imperfect) human being. It is about whether he did or did not commit a crime. In the end, that is the only thing that matters.

If Michael disliked Gavin Arvizo to the point that he was actively avoiding him, then it stands to reason that he had zero interest in molesting him, at that time or any other. But we can hardly fault him if his life didn’t revolve around Gavin Arvizo. That was never his intention. It was the Arvizos who expected Michael to deliver the moon. And apparently, a rainbow and a bridge or two.

In a way, I suppose there is a kind of twisted poetic justice in Gavin’s ability to move on with his life, reducing Michael Jackson and everything he put him through to a mere blimp on his conscience. In his mind, I believe he feels totally justified in thinking this was what Michael did to him.

It’s not exactly turnabout, since the playing field is hardly even. But it seems to suit the Arvizo family logic perfectly.

73 thoughts on “Gavin Arvizo: The Only Child Michael Jackson Ever Hated?”

    1. LOL at those Waffle House pics!

      Funny thing is, that’s probably a Waffle House I ate at many times while traveling back and forth to grad school
      So Janet WAS there. I’ll have to make the correction to the article. I just thought it strange she was never mentioned.

      The more I see of all these people, happy, smug and smiling with drinks in their hands, the more it sickens me.

  1. Good work, Raven. This is exactly what I also found in my research on Michael and charisma, some of which I will be presenting this month at a meeting of the Indiana Political Science Association to be held at Indiana University-Northwest in Gary, IN Indeed, there are what I call casualties of charisma, meaning emotionally unstable people get dependent on the charismatic leader and when that leader doesn’t act according to the follower’s expectations, they become angry and bitter. Nothing new under the sun. It happened to Jesus.

    Sherry Bryant, M.A.
    aka “s walker bryant” online

    1. Sherry, do you plan to share any of your research (on Michael and charisma) that you present at the meeting? If you do, I’d love to read it.

          1. I do have it. Sorry I have been a bit out of pocket here the last few days. I will catch up reading and responding to comments tomorrow.

    2. Michael was always prone to others’ expectations of him. I suppose that is true of every celebrity to some extent, but the pressure on Michael was more intense due to the pre-conceived notions that everyone brought to any meeting with him. For instance, if they were expecting this great and humble, loving presence, who would extend hours giving hugs or saying “I love you more” and maybe they didn’t get that because he was having a bad day or whatever, all of a sudden he was the bad guy who had somehow cheated so-and-so out of their “special moment” they felt entitled to. (I can’t say I am immune to this, either. Everyone, upon meeting someone famous or someone they look up to, likes to think of that experience as a special moment, but if that person ends up just making you feel like chattel, it will inevitably color your perceptions of him or her. It isn’t fair, necessarily, but it’s the way human nature works). There is a video of Michael in Gary, Indiana where they are riding in a limo on the way to the family house. I don’t have time right now to look it up, but I’m sure most readers know the one I’m referring to. The driver has gotten lost or taken a wrong turn or something, and Michael is visibly upset because this means they are going to be late arriving to the event. His number one concern? I can’t remember if he repeated it or only said it once, but the thing I remember is how he said, “This will reflect bad on me.” He knew, of course, that what would end up making the headlines is that “Michael Jackson Arrives Late-Keeps Fans Waiting.” And, of course, it was a situation totally beyond his control, but that just goes to show the kind of pressure he was under constantly to live up to expectations-or be ripped to shreds as a result.

  2. Raven, you’re much too kind. Gavin Arvizo, like Jordan Chandler, was plenty old enough to know right from wrong, and the truth from lies. They wanted Michael’s money just as much as their greedy parents. I can’t recall where I read it, (maybe in Aphrodite Jones’ book?) but apparently Janet Arvizo was querying lawyers as to how to sue Michael Jackson before the family even met him. It was a set up from the get go.

    I’ve also heard that Gavin has told classmates that Michael never molested him. He swore to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, then sat on the witness stand and lied. TV Judge Greg Mathis often talks about how he was delinquent as a teenager, before he saw the error of his ways and put himself through college and law school. But he wasn’t allowed to practice for several years. His past behavior was held against him. Apparently Gavin wants to be a lawyer, and he’s supposedly being mentored by Ron Zonen. It would be just if his law license was denied or delayed because he lied under oath.

    Michael does bear responsibility for not putting the Arvizo kids in check for their crappy behavior. He let them get away with rudeness he never would have tolerated from his own children, like their boorish antics on his private jet.

    1. Janet Arvizo was on the plane also when her kids were being rude and abusive to the stewardesses. When the primary parent is present they are the person responsible for controlling & disciplining their own children.

      It’s an unwritten code between parents: you don’t discipline other people’s children when the actual parent is present.

      1. Ordinarily I would agree – it’s up to the parents to discipline their children. But these louts were hitching a ride on Michael’s private plane. They weren’t out in public. Perhaps MJ should have pulled Janet Arvizo aside and told her to correct her kids’ behavior, but it’s doubtful that would have worked as it’s likely that she co-signed and encouraged them to act that way.

        The Arvizos wanted to call Michael “Daddy”, even though they already had two daddies of their own. Well Daddy Michael certainly should have been able to tell how to act in that circumstance.

    2. I had heard that, too, that Janet was seeking lawyers before she even met Michael. However, I was unable to locate the source of that information and, like you, couldn’t recall exactly where I had seen/read it. If anyone has the link for that information, I’ll be happy to add it.

      I don’t really think it was his place to discipline Gavin and Star. They weren’t his kids. But he definitely should have gotten them the hell out of his life a lot sooner than he did-and never invited them back in.

  3. Hi Raven:

    “But given what we know of Janet Arvizo’s mental history, the story is most likely true. Oddly enough, Janet was not even mentioned in the wedding articles ( Did she even attend?”

    If you click on Sanemjfan’s link to the wedding pictures, I believe Arvizo’s mother, accompanied by Jay Jackson in his military regalia, can be seen walking into the church. She is wearing a dark purple gown. Diane Dimond and her husband are in the third pew and Ron Zonen is in the same pew at the far right of the picture. The mother is hugging the son on the dance floor in another picture and Zonen is also pictured speaking to the crowd, on the dance floor. Thick as thieves.

    I believe you are right – he feels nothing for what he did to Michael.

    1. Yes, I saw that. I will be updating that part of the article where I mentioned her.

      It’s always hard to know how much to believe of what you hear, and this is as true of Michael’s accusers as for Michael himself. All of the stories about Janet turning on her son could have just been tabloid gossip, designed of course to drum up sympathy for Gavin at Michael’s expense (here’s this poor kid who was probably abused, whose testimony was not believed in court, and now even his own mother has turned on him!).

      It’s funny because you look at the wedding photos, and if you knew nothing of this family’s history, you would think they were such happy and “normal” people. Lol, how looks can deceive!

  4. Hello Raven! I discovered your blog a little while ago and this is my first time commenting. I’d just like to say that I really appreciate your articles and putting out viewpoints that, at least for myself, haven’t been thought of. Thank you and I can’t wait to see what else you have coming up!

  5. From Boteach’s Honoring the Child Spirit:

    “SB: So if G-d is light, to use that metaphor, whereas adults build these barriers that block off the light and they get dark, children are translucent, with no conscious barriers between them and the light. G-d’s light shines through them unobstructed.

    MJ: They are the light. I was telling Frank the other day, in my opinion Gavin represents the white light we see before we die, that hope comes. Don’t be afraid, he’s like an angel. How could he not be sweet and kind in his soul? There’s a message there somewhere, the kids have it.”

    I think MJ sincerely felt this way when Gavin was ‘bald headed’ and ill with cancer and cancer treatments. The fact he wasn’t touchy feely, as you said, could be due to what happened in 93 and just being cautious; same with not letting Gavin sleep in the same bed and having Frank there to be a witness that nothing bad happened.

    I really don’t think he saw it coming that Gavin would accuse him until the NL raid while he was filming One More Chance in Vegas. Then he was devastated and enraged.

    I agree that Bashir knowingly set him up–it was a true conspiracy IMO–planned very carefully. Bashir is a devious sh*t and had connections with the other media vultures in USA and UK, and IMO it was well coordinated for a big ratings bonanza to make them all rich, including leaking Jordan’s bogus Declaration on the same day the Bashir LWMJ aired in USA.

    1. Sick children always have a vulnerability about them, and I agree Michael was probably suckered into feeling sorry for Gavin when he was sick. Once he became a big, strapping boy making his goo-goo eyes and wanting to touch/feel all the time, I think Michael was appropriately grossed out, and started distancing himself.

  6. The wedding photographer is the brides cousin , who runs a photo business.
    Janet Arvizo actually does a reading if you look at the photos, which I havent in a while but I do recall a photo of Gavin hugging his mother, he obviously loves her very much , which is how she would get her children to lie for her , according to the legal secretary used by them in the JC Penny fraud.
    To believe that the DJ played one of MJ songs, you would have to believe Ms Dimond, and she makes it up as she goes along..
    She also said MJ sneered and growled at her outside court one day, which was a complete fabrication according to Randy T.
    I would suggest that was just a hook for her story to make it seem more interesting.
    The sole purpose of her being at the wedding is to cover it for the Daily Beast.I am sure her way was paid by them and Im sure Gavin got a cut of the money , just as Blanca Francia did when she sold her story to Dimond.
    She isnt there as a guest.
    This was paid job and Gavin agreed to it imo.
    What kind of groom allows the most special day of his new brides life to be photographed and put in cheesy tabloids for money?
    He hasnt changed one bit imo.
    Janet Arvizo did admit to seeing an atty BEFORE she had met MJ to see what her options were in the event her child would be accosted by Michael.
    I would suggest that was the reason Gavin and Starr were told to ask MJ to sleep in his room.
    After all, Gavin has been presented to MJ as a dying childs last wish, spending time with his idol/.How could he say no??
    That wasnt true either, because his prognosis was he would be out of the woods after going through chemo.
    Unfortunately for Janet , Frank stayed in the room also, so that hope was dashed.
    However thanks to Bashir documentary and her hook up with Larry Feldman, it would appear that you didnt need logic, or a realistic time line to have Tom Sneddon go on a scorched Earth vendetta.
    You will notice Ron Zonen giving a toast at the wedding also.
    It really appalls me , that he continues to promote Gavin as a victim, to protect his own personal and professional reputation.
    Now he has included his new religious bride in the mix.
    Before Diane Dimond blocked me , I told her there were alot of adults in that courtroom using children , but MJ wasnt one of them.
    I dont believe for one moment that by the time the trial began, any of those prosecutors believed Gavin, but there reputations were on the line and felt they could get a conviction by bringing up the Chandler garbage

    1. I often wonder how much the prosecution really believed him. Logically thinking there is no way they should have believed him. They must have noticed the changing stories, the contradictions and of course they assisted the Arvizos themselves with the changing of one impossible timeline to another impossible timeline. But I think they were so blinded by their hatred and prejudice against MJ that they were ready to believe anything and convinced themselves of anything even if it didn’t make sense.

    2. If Diane Dimond’s account of the DJ playing Michael’s music were false, surely one could expect an angry denial from the bridegroom demanding a retraction. If Gavin had really been victimized by a monstrous MJ, he would have been outraged by the reporting that he just shrugged his shoulders. Look at how Dylan Farrow attacks Woody Allen’s work, and his artistic collaborators by extension. Where’s your ‘trauma’, Gavin.

      The kids at Gavin’s school probably ragged him because of the obvious – he was a big chunky kid who definitely outweighed Michael. If there was sexual activity between the two, Gavin could easily have put a stop to it. If he didn’t, he must have liked it. He was Michael Jackson’s bitch. That’s one aspect of the Arvizo’s little scam they likely failed to anticipate. Being teased could have fueled Gavin’s anger at Michael as much or more than being avoided.

    3. I saw the photos of Janet once I clicked on the link and scrolled through. Yes, that was her doing the reading. (I can only imagine what a treat that must have been to listen to!). In a way, I feel intrusive for looking at these photos BUT if they were so concerned about protecting their anonymity, they shouldn’t post them online NOR allow Diane Dimond to “cover” the wedding so that she could write about it and post photos in all the tabloids. I agree that this seems like a deliberate thumbing to MJ fans everywhere, as if to say “Look at us!”

      So if we point and laugh, they have only themselves to blame.

      I can’t even feel any real sympathy for Shelby, the bride. She has to know the entire story-at least I am sure she knows Gavin’s side!-and has elected to throw in her lot with him. I suppose it must be real love when you know that marrying someone is going to subject you and your life to so much scrutiny, most of it negative.

      As for whether the MJ song was actually played, who knows. That could have been a fabrication, but there’s no way to know unless one was there. Diane, of course, with her ever fertile imagination, would think of it as the perfect hook.

      It’s very routine for couples to hire wedding dj’s but usually the dj picks their own music, so it’s very possible that this dj inadvertently played a Michael song. But it’s also just as possible that the whole thing was staged for just that kind of publicity.

  7. I personally do not believe that Gavin was looking for any type of father figure in MJ. That was a part of the act in my opinion. They called other people mother, father, sister as well. It was just their way to get close to celebrities.

    It’s clear to me that Michael never really trusted this family. The contact was initiated by Gavin, after he saw Michael on TV. Michael called him in the hospital and while Gavin was recovering at his grandmother’s and then invited the family to NL. This was in 2000. Gavin and Star begged him to sleep in his bedroom but the fact that Michael insisted on Frank Cascio to sleep there as well shows that he did not trust them from the get go.

    The Arvizos in their initial story that is presented in the prosecution’s Statement of Probable Cause in November 2003, tried to portray Michael as the clingy one. This is from that document:

    “Mrs. Arvizo told us that Michael Jackson was in phone contact with Gavin a lot during this time period. She said they would talk on the phone for hours at a time.” (page 20)

    “Michael was also upset because she complained that his phone conversations with Gavin were too long. Mrs. Arvizo believes this was Michael’s motivation for not returning the Bronco and laptop.” (page 20)

    This is in contradiction with the later version of their story that they presented on the stand. On the stand Gavin admitted that MJ actually started to change his phone number and avoid him as early as August-September 2000, shortly after that first visit at NL. And instead of complaining that her son’s conversations with MJ were too long, Janet Arvizo actually encouraged her sons to write nice letters to MJ because he was not available to them on the phone.

    This part of Gavin’s testimony is very revealing:

    21 Q. Can you look this jury in eye and tell them
    22 Michael Jackson did nothing for you when you had
    23 cancer.
    24 A. I never said Michael did nothing for me.
    25 Q. Did you say he did very little.
    26 A. Yeah. He didn’t do as much as I felt, as my
    27 11-year-old mind felt.
    28 Q. He should. 1705
    1 A. No. He shouldn’t — it’s not his obligation
    2 to do anything.
    3 Q. Well, are you telling the jury you deserved
    4 a lot more from Michael Jackson than you and your
    5 family got.
    6 A. No.
    7 Q. Is that what you’re saying.
    8 A. No. I’m just saying that — see, when I
    9 have a friend, Michael, and you’re saying all these
    10 things that he did, but, you know, when my
    11 11-year-old mind — and when I see my friend say
    12 that he’s not there, and he’s not at Neverland Ranch
    13 trying — and I see him walking and I see his car
    14 that he only drives going down at Neverland, you
    15 know, it felt like my heart broke right there.
    16 Q. So by doing all of these things —
    17 A. And I don’t remember George Lopez or Jamie
    18 Masada or Louise Palanker ever doing that to me.

    And this is how he describes that bumping into MJ when he was told that Michael wasn’t there:

    Q. During the time from when — the first time you went to the ranch that you’ve described to us to the time that you went there with Mr. Tucker – okay? – during that, I think you said seven times, how many of those times was Mr. Jackson actually present on the ranch?
    A. Maybe twice.
    Q. And on those occasions when Mr. Jackson was on the ranch, did you have any contact with him?
    A. Those two occasions, yeah. But, I mean, like, sometimes I would go up to the ranch and he would say that he’s not there, and then he would be there.
    Q. What do you mean by that?
    A. Like, when I would have cancer. I don’t know what happened, but Michael, like, kind of stopped talking to me and stuff, right in the middle of my cancer. And, like, I would go up there, and I would see, like, Prince and Paris playing there, and I would think that Michael was there, and they would tell me that Michael wasn’t there. And then, like, I would see him somewhere, and — I don’t know.
    Q. Was there one occasion when you actually ran into him by accident?
    A. Yeah.
    Q. Tell the jury about that.
    A. Well, I was playing with Prince and Paris outside, like in the back of the house near where the arcade was. And then we were walking into the — into the main house. And I knew the code, because they would give me the codes. And then I walked in the door with Prince in my hand and Paris in my other hand, and — we were holding hands. And then we walked into the house and there I saw Michael walking, like, toward me. But I guess he didn’t see me turn the corner. And then he acted as if, “Oh, crap,” you know what I mean? Like, he saw me. And then — then he just played it off and, like, acted like, “Oh, hi, Doo-Doo Head.” You know, at the time I — I was kind of hypnotized and, like, he’s my –
    MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for a narrative and nonresponsive.
    THE COURT: Sustained.
    Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Okay.
    A. And then, like –1513
    Q. That’s all right. I’ll give you a question. So in any case, you bumped into him?
    A. Yeah. And I was — because of –
    Q. That’s okay. How much more contact did you have with him on that time when you bumped into him? How much time did the contact last?
    A. I didn’t really see him through my cancer a lot.
    Q. I mean, you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury there was an occasion where you were there when you kind of bumped into him by accident?
    A. Yeah.
    Q. When you actually made contact with him – okay? – how long did that last? Just — how long was the conversation between the two of you?
    A. Maybe, like, five minutes. When — that time we bumped into each other, and then we just talked about — and stuff, and he said he had to go somewhere.

    This was in 2000. Again, it shows that Michael never trusted this kid. He must have felt from the get go that something was “off” about him and his family. It was a big mistake to call this kid back to NL for the Bashir documentary when MJ did not trust them at all (and his instincts were right). BTW, Raven, you asked:

    “The only thing that still leaves an unsettling question in my mind is…why did Michael agree to bring the Arvizos back into his life? Surely there were many other children he had helped that he could have chosen to call in for the documentary. As Aphrodite Jones stated in the above interview, he had considered Dave Dave, the boy who was severely burned by his father. I’m sure there were many others who would have gladly accepted this offer. Why Gavin? The question is a bit of a mystery although perhaps, in the end, the sheer miraculousness of his recovery was incentive enough.”

    I have heard (unfortunately can’t remember the source) that both Gavin and Dave Dave were offered for Bashir as a story, but Bashir picked Gavin (for obvious reasons, as we know in the hindsight). This might be true, because from Gavin’s testimony we learn that Dave was there that day as well:

    12 Q. Okay. Did you ever meet this person who was
    13 burned.
    14 A. Yeah, I think Michael introduced me to him.
    15 Q. And when was this.
    16 A. Around the same time as the Martin Bashir
    17 thing.
    18 Q. Was it at Neverland.
    19 A. Yes.
    20 Q. Did you talk to this person.
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. Do you remember the person’s name.
    23 A. I think his name might have been David.
    24 Q. Was it Rothenberg.
    25 A. I don’t know.
    26 Q. Was this a young man that you learned’s
    27 father had poured gasoline on him and set him on
    28 fire. 1935
    1 A. I don’t know.
    2 Q. Okay.
    3 A. I think that’s what happened.
    4 Q. And he was supposed to be in the film with
    5 you, right.
    6 A. Yes.
    7 Q. Okay. And correct me if I’m wrong, you
    8 discussed with Michael the fact that Michael had
    9 helped this young boy, right.
    10 A. Yes.
    11 Q. Okay. Did you talk to this young boy about
    12 what he had experienced.
    13 A. No.
    14 Q. Okay. Did you ever see him.
    15 A. Yes.
    16 Q. And please describe for the jury what he
    17 looked like.
    18 A. He looked like he was really badly burned
    19 and he had like — he was like a rocker. He was
    20 wearing, like, rocker stuff. And he was burned.
    21 And he had like only a few hairs on his head because
    22 I guess it covered all the pores when he was burned.
    23 Q. Did you and he appear in the film, if you
    24 know.
    25 A. Later I watched it, and then — well, I
    26 watched my part, and then I don’t think he was in
    27 there.

    I wish Michael had put down his feet and insisted on Dave instead of Gavin. He actually had a real friendship with Dave, unlike with Gavin.

    I personally do not think Gavin really felt MJ was his “father” or surrogate father, I think the Arvizos were just trying to emotionally manipulate MJ with that stuff. But I do think it hurt Gavin’s ego a lot when he saw Michael avoiding him. In his testimony he puts a great emphasis on it how Michael wasn’t really there for him during his cancer as claimed and as others like Jamie Masada, Chris Tucker, Louis Palanker etc. were. I agree that in his mind probably this rejection is what he feels justifies the false allegations.

    It’s interesting that these accusers always tell on their real motives, besides the monetary motive, which is obviously the main one, but I think they justify it to themselves in some way. Like when Evan Chandler says in Ray Chandler’s book:

    “And it wasn’t just the sex part. Everyone made a big deal about the sex – the press, the cops, the DA. That was important, sure, but it wasn’t the main thing for me. It was what Michael did to him to get to that point. He took over his mind and isolated him from his family and friends and everyone he cared for. He made him his own little slave. On the outside it looked like he was showing Jordie the time of his life, but on the inside he was robbing him of his individuality, his soul. That was the real crime, and that’s what I wanted Michael to pay for.”

    Of course, there was no “sex part” – that’s why Evan can take that part so lightly. But it reveals the real motives – a jealousy of Michael and his son’s friendship. That’s how he made Michael deserving of these false allegations in his mind.

    Wade Robson’s justification for his false allegatons IMO is revealed in the whole Spielberg prophecies part of his lawsuit. Robson might have had some kind of burn-out and reflecting on his life probably realized that he did not have much childhood, having to work in showbusiness from an early age. And he blames it on Michael now because he encouraged him to have a showbiz career. So in a way he does blame his breakdowns and mental problems on Michael, only you cannot sue someone for encouraging you in showbiz as a child. So enter child molestation allegations. But his identification of the source of his problems is wrong. Michael might have encouraged him, but he wasn’t the one who took him 4-5 auditions a day and who was unsatisfied with what they have achieved in the US after staying there for three years. It was Wade’s mother. Who is conveniently missing from his lawsuit and from the group of people he blames. I think what he is really unable and unwilling to admit is that he should blame his mother for his problems, not Michael.

    1. I haven’t read some of Wades interviews from back in the day , lately, but it was Joy Robson hunting MJ down when they went to play Disney in Ca, MJ wasnt looking for them.
      Wade even mentioned that in testimony , how surprised he was that his mother was able to track MJ down, when they went to Ca.
      And Wade has said , that MJ told him , he has to follow his heart and if he wants his help, he will try and help him.Michael was not part of the decision to push Wade, he advocated for Wade to have a childhood, same as he did for 3T

      So it was the mother , pushing to find MJ in Australia, pushing to find him in the USA, moving to the states for her sons career
      That is really something , when you think of uprooting yourself and your kids to another country , in an effort to get your children in show business.
      I heard a radio show with Joy saying that by 10 yrs old, Wade had realized being a dancer was too much work and didnt pay enough.
      I suppose that is when he started thinking about directing or being a choreographer.
      Seems to me, his career was between the mother and him,. and MJ was occasionally asked for help or a job..
      I havent seen what the court papers are for this accusation, but I understand he was told by MJ that he could be as big as Speilberg..Is that right?
      MJ also told kids that wanted to be actors to aim for being as big as Brando.
      Does this mean if someone encourages you and tells you , that you have potential , and you dont end up filling that potential, it can become part of a civil suit? ..So he is saying he was mentored and molested..It sounds absurd to me
      I will have to look for the court documents so I can understand exactly what he is trying to prove.
      I just think it is an act of desperation, by someone who has no education or experience with any career other than entertainment ,. and if you have messed up ,chances are, nobody is looking to give you a job that millions of dollars are at stake with, so he is out of options.
      Ayanna,
      If you are talking about the remarks Dimond made about Mj sneering at her , there is no footage of him doing that to her,at all through the trial and there were tons of cameras outside the courthouse , and she never mentioned it throughout the trial, just after he died and she was on the View..So I believe Randy on this..I dont think MJ would give her the satisfaction..I really do think she is a habitual liar, when it comes to him.

      1. @ Nan

        Indeed it was Joy who hunted down Michael. Moreover, I recently re-read some prosecution motions from 2005 and in the motion in which they ask for the introduction of “prior bad acts” testimony one part is about Orietta Murdock. Murdock apperently told this to prosecutors:

        “During the time Ms. Murdock was working at MJJ, she remembers Robson’s mother calling every day to inquire about the status of the green cards that Jackson had promised to obtain for her and Wade. Eventually Jackson was able to assist Wade and his mother, Joy Robson, in gaining entry into the country.”

        So she was that pushy that she called Michael’s office about it every day. This is interesting now because Wade accuses Michael’s two companies (MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures) of enabling his abuse by bringing him in the country and allegedly turning a blind eye on his abuse or even knowingly assisting it. How can he claim that without putting his mother among the accused as well? When she was the one who was pushing and pushing Michael to help them with the green cards and everything. And if Wade blames MJ’s companies for enabling his alleged abuse how can he not blame his mother? More than any employee of Michael it was his mother who should have taken care of him! His mother knew about the sleepovers and allowed them. So if he wants to accuse Michael’s employees and companies now of enabling his alleged abuse there is no way he can do that without also accusing his mother. He cannot have it both ways, but apparently he tries to.

        Here is an article about the Robsons from 1994. It’s based on an interview with Joy. I think this is what you refer to as well?

        http://onwiththeshow.com.au/the-inside-story-on-life-in-michael-jacksons-shadow-1995/

        Some interesting parts:

        “While Michael was their friend, he never interfered with Wade’s career … only to offer advice, but the ultimate decision was Joy and Wades’.”

        “Joy said Wade and daughter Chantal developed an American accent almost immediately. As a result, Wade was doing three or four auditions between 3-7pm each day. While Wade worked hard, attending audition after audition, learning lines, practising and rehearsing his dance movements, so too did Joy – his greatest supporter. The two are almost inseparable and make career decisions together.”

        “He is a mature 12-year-old who knows what he wants whether it be an album cover design or an acting role. He is a born performer,” said Joy. “When Wade was just a tiny tot in Brisbane he used to stand on the sidewalks and dance for customers – much to their delight – at Chatswood Hills. He was shy off stage but when performing was quite extrovert,” said Joy. “If he had his way he would sleep on stage.”

        “Wade said Michael was an inspiration to him and a guiding force spiritually but his career, including the move into recording, was his and Joy’s decision alone.”

        “Three years since their arrival on American soil, the Robson family are heavily entrenched in the entertainment scene. It is a tribute to Joy’s courage, persistence and belief in her son’s ability, and their fortitude to stand up for what they believe is right. They could easily have repacked their six bags and returned home to Australia, but they – as a team – decided to stay and help a friend in need, while at the same time defy the odds and pursue their own goals in their own way.”

        “When we first came here I thought we would have achieved more in three years but now – I look at the reality of life and the business – and compare what we have done with others who have been in the industry all their lives, and I think we have done very well,” said Joy.

        “I would do it all again for the same reasons I did it in the first place. I had to give it a try or I would be forever wondering if I could have done it. I believed I had nothing to lose.”

        Now, onto that whole Spielberg thing in Wade’s lawsuit:

        “It was also on that trip that Doe 1 began to fill Plaintiff with information such as, “Study the greats and become greater. Be the best or nothing at all. Rule the world. Be in the history books. Immortalize yourself,” and prophesied that Plaintiff “will be a film director bigger than Steven Spielberg.” As far as Plaintiff was concerned, his fate was written.” (page 31)

        “In 2011, Plaintiff was hired to direct his firs theatrical motion picture, Step up 4, a dance film with an approximte $30 million budget. It was the start of the culmination of everything he and Doe 1 had hoped that Plaintiff would accomplish – Plaintiff beleived Doe 1’s prophecy about Plaintiff was coming true. At the end of April 2011. for reasons unknown to him at the time, Plaintiff was overwhelmed with stress and anxiety and quit the film shortly before the start of principal photography. Plaintiff then suffered the first of his two (2) nervous breakdowns with the inability to function in everyday society. To help cope and find an answer as to what Plaintiff was going through, as he was unable to continue working whatsoever, he began seeing a cognitive psychologist on May 16, 2011, for approximetaly one (1) month. They discussed Doe 1, but Plaintiff did not tell [blocked] about their sexual activities.

        Plaintiff began to work again a couple of months later in mid July 2011 with his former sense of “invincibility”. But then he had his second and final nervous breakdown in March 2012. He has not worked since and no longer is able to work in his former professions in the entertainment industry at all. Plaintiff did not understand at the time of his second nervous breakdown the reasons he was unable to work and continue doing what he used to love.” (page 35)

        The same in Wade’s own words in his declaration: http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/wade-robson354b0046b.pdf

        “He [MJ] also began to fill my head with maxims to live by such as “Be in the history books” and “Immortalize yourself.” He also prophesized that I would one day be a film director bigger than Steven Spielberg. As far as I was concerned, Doe 1 had written my fate.” (page 2)

        “In November 2010 my first son was born. Shortly after that, I got the job to direct my first major studio feature film. Doe 1’s prophecy was coming true, now I just had to fulfill my end of the bargain, I thought.” (page 5)

        “Had it not been for the sexual abuse I suffered as a child, my emotional breakdowns as a result and my subsequent inability to return to the life that Doe 1 “prophesized” I would have, I believe my career would have continued on this upward trajectory.” (page 7)

        And this is what Wade’s cousin Jonathan Keller wrote in the comment section of a RadarOnline article in July 2013. (Of course, with Internet comments it’s hard to prove they really were written by a person who the writer claims to be, but IMO that comment was consistent with the views of Jonathan Keller elsewhere, so to me it seems really him.)

        “After talking with Wade, I can now see that there is some sort of need to receive recompense when you are a victim and asking for compensation is part of his healing. He also cannot work in his profession anymore because it is so psychologically linked to Michael for him. What most people don’t understand is that the same indoctrination about the abuse Wade received was the same indoctrination to be successful and well known in the entertainment industry, “Be the best, or be nothing”.”

        Pretty stupid comment though, because how would indoctrination about alleged abuse be the same as “indoctrination” about being the best? But it shows these things are connected in his story.

        In the same comment Jonathan also said:

        “There is also many people who knew what Michael was doing, and potentially
        facilitated it because he was making them money, who are still alive,
        and still profiting from Michael’s estate. People for example who
        organised for Wade to come from Australia to America, and other children
        like Wade.

        I don’t have anger for Michael, he had a very troubled life (although it doesn’t excuse what he did). But there was people around Michael who at the very least turned a blind eye, and those are the people that make me very upset”

        There you go. They aren’t even really angry with Michael but with people who are still profiting from Michael’s Estate… Conveniently the very people who are in charge of Michael’s money.

        And again, how can they claim this with a straight face and not pointing finger at Joy? If these people turned a blind eye, wasn’t Joy the main one who turned a blind eye?

        —-

        The contrast I see between that article from 1994 and what Wade claims now is, that his lawsuit makes it appear that all the pressure to achieve was put on him by Michael. No mention of his mother at all. Yet, in that article in 1994 they say that Michael actually had little to do with Wade’s career other than helping them to move to the US and giving Wade small parts in some videos and giving him a couple of advices. It’s his mother who took Wade to three-four auditions per day and who was unsatisfied with what they have achieved in three years in the US. You can clearly see from that article what a pushy tiger mom Joy was! Yet, now they try to blame all the pressure that Wade apparently felt on Michael and his “prophecy”?

        It seems to me that Wade felt some kind pressure to fulfill MJ’s “prophecy” and when he realized it’s too much of a task for him he had breakdowns. That not may be the sole reason, because let’s not forget that mental illness is also running in Wade’s family – as it is stated in his lawsuit his father was bipolar and committed suicide. So I think Wade may be prone to mental illness – obviously someone who’s had two breakdowns is not healthy mentally. But the point is that IMO this is the real reason why he turned on Michael and why he resents him now: because his prophecy that Wade could not fulfill made him feel like a failure. Of course, the main motive is money. After realizing he could not work any more because of his mental illness he had to find a way to secure himself and his family financially. But he cannot sue Michael Jackson for unfilfulled prophecy, so enter the most convenient way to sue Michael Jackson: child molestation allegations. But IMO the way he justifies it in his head is this whole thing about MJ putting the pressure on him by his “prophecy” and therefore making Michael in his head somehow responsible for his breakdown and stalled career for that he has to pay. Even if he knows MJ never molested him.

        BTW, although it is blocked out in Wade’s lawsuit what he alleges when you look up the cited penal codes you will see that mostly he accuses Michael of sodomy, even anal rape. Now, this is a new level, that not even the Chandlers and Arvizos claimed. Wade is really stupid to claim this because it only makes his claims even less believable. How can you claim that in 2005 as an adult you did not know that anal rape was wrong and sexual abuse? How can you claim that you were repeatedly anally raped by an adult man between the ages of 7 and 14 and you thought it was “loving”? How can you claim that you were repeatedly anally raped by an adult man between the ages of 7 and 14 and there were never any medical or psychological signs of it? Your mother never realized anything? He dug himself in a deeper hole with that IMO.

        1. Suzy,
          all I can say is WOW.Thanks for the info….What incredulous accusations ! I am just dumbfounded by the supposed sexual violations being tied into mentoring…
          Michael told everyone that ..He encouraged everybody.
          How many young people can be brought into court and testify MJ told them the same thing,basically word for word, and it was all above board.
          I think it is almost a bitter jealousy that he could take the finest things MJ had said to children to encourage bettering oneself and turn it into something sinister.

          When you cant handle a job in the entertainment business and 30 million dollars is on the line, you are going to be replaced ….If you fail/replaced …it isnt up to you to decide whether you are capable of doing the next job or deciding if you want to take the next job.
          People will not take a chance on you with that kind of money at stake, so you arent getting hired,by anybody on any job.imo
          I think that is his problem..

          He also had issues with the estate , not using him , so I suppose it is a lucky side effect that your breakdown is the fault of the wealthiest person you know…and they are dead.
          I have seen him direct/film a little public service type video in Hawaii, so evidently he can make videos, just not blockbuster ones.
          I cant believe anyone would actually go to court with a tall tale like this one, so I think this is just to try and give the estate bad publicity , and try and force a settlement.If he is suing a bunch of people, others within the suit may try to pressure the estate into settling.
          After all Weitzman was on board with the other one, but this brings others reputation into question, and I dont think they are going to roll over for him on this , to get him out of the way…so I think he is just going to be out of luck and out of work.
          In some way , I think he is jealous of MJ kids also , because actually they are the ones he is hurting..
          I thought it was interesting that before he went on the TODAY show , his sister was promoting his appearance on social media , like he was going to star in a sitcom “tune in to see my brother Wade tell his truth”
          Seems like a very bizarre attitude to me.
          And for this to happen supposedly a year before , his mother was not with him , standing in his corner..I thought that was kinda telling too.
          You are right, what is he going to do ? Bring his mother in and throw her under the bus?
          Is she supposed to say , she went along with this supposed activity?
          That she knew MJ was being accused by the Chandler family , and continued her friendship with MJ, because she turned a blind eye, or was she a mother very much aware of the accusations, and knew they were bogus.
          Again , you are right, he should be blaming his supposed mental health breakdown on her …

          There is footage of him talking to a pap in an airport after his appearance on TODAY and he had his vacant serious face on ,saying if he can help one other person, in other words imo, trolling for more people to come forward for a potential pot of gold….but at the end , the pap told him , lots of people dont believe him , and his demeanor changed and said word to effect “dude, i gotta go” and stopped the conversation.
          Then of course he ran off to Hawaii
          His lawyer was supposedly interested in the supposed settlements that some English tabloid talked about , but werent true .
          Why are they trolling for victims, when they can speak to Jordan Chandler/
          Isnt he the obvious one ? he is actually the only one, that left questions for some and he wouldnt show up for court in 2005.
          He has said he feared cross examination, even back in 93
          And the lawyers that advised that settlement , are part of this case , and can explain why it was a business decision ..not an admission, just as Wade is hoping they make a business decision that benefits him , imo.
          2005
          Jason Francia was laughed out of court and Gavin was found to be a liar.
          2009
          Of course now the FBI files are out, clearing MJ in every file

          and showing Jordan Chandler is in there threatening legal action against the people who are supposedly trying to bring a criminal , who preys on child cancer victims, to justice , with no explanation what so ever as to why he wont help them, other than “I did my part”..
          I think when things get out of the tabloids and into court , MJ is always vindicated.He won Guiterrez, Neverland 5, and the Arvizo garbage.
          Francia were shot down also.

          Which is why I think he went on the TODAY show once, to threaten the estate with tabloid headlines, in the future if they dont cave..I just dont see them going for it.

        2. Thanks for all the info. It’s pretty amazing to me that he has ANY legal grounds since he is filing late (for one thing) and since the person he is accusing is DECEASED. I know CA law is heavily stacked to help the victims of child sex abuse/molestation but this is getting ridiculous. Legally, how is MJ’s right to confront his accuser going to happen? How can he defend himself? Seems to me this is a total violation. But maybe a deceased person has no rights? So legally they are just going to be victimized by lawsuits from the living? I wish a lawyer could helpout here b/c it sounds totally insane to me that this lawsuit could go forward. Wade R. had his chance when MJ was alive and he did not have the courage to make a case then, did he?

          The other issue is this “I didn’t realize I was abused” until I went into THERAPY. There is something very fishy here b/c remember that therapists have gotten people in a lot of mess–repressed memories–that whole concept made a lot of innocent people go to jail and therapists would say things like if you have nightmares, you were abused; if your grades go down, you were abused, if you feel uncomfortable around x, you were abused–even though there were no memories of abuse.

          There are good therapists but a lot of incompetent ones who MAY mean well but who can certainly TELL a patient /client that they think they were abused and start to plant seeds and help them grow. I think this is what has happened here. The “memories” came from a therapist encouraging Wade to think that way. If he really had a breakdown, or some emotional fears about directing such a big budget film, and he goes into therapy–the therapist can say–this is what I think–you were abused. And Wade goes,–really? Hmmm. Maybe so, and starts to go in that direction.

          I agree with Suzy that the claims of such explicit sexual acts that he is making now do not make sense given his testimony in 05 that MJ never did anything inappropriate.

          Re his mother–I do not think she can be accused (brought into this legally) if he does not name her himself. I agree that he should logically name her if he is going to name people in MJ’s employ.

          Would this happen legally in any other country or state? Just seems so nuts that you can bring this kind of lawsuit against a deceased person. What a horrible precedent if it goes forward.

          1. I agree that Wade’s case should be thrown out, but you never know what can happen in the US legal system. There are child molestation cases where alleged victims bring lawsuits against the accused’s Estate or an organization he worked for (for example against the church if it’s a priest), but those are very different cases. In those cases often the alleged victims hold back for so long because they fear no one would believe them or because they think they were the only ones who were abused etc. In those cases we talk about alleged perpetrators who were never accused while they were alive. Obviously none of these can be applied to Wade, since MJ was very publicly accused of it since 1993, there were other alleged victims long before MJ’s death, so unlike in those other cases it cannot be said that it took the accused’s death for the floodgates to open. Also Wade had his chance to make these allegations in a criminal court as an adult in 2005. And the way he tries to get around the statues of limitations in his lawsuit seems ridiculous to me. His lawsuit claims: “Claimant was unaware of the administration of Decendent’s estate until March 4, 2013.” How could he have been unaware of it when he contributed to the Opus book and tried to work on Immortal – which were Estate projects? Moreover his own long time lawyer, Helen Yu is on the record talking about MJ’s Estate in 2009: http://www.yuleseberg.com/news/worthmoredeadthanalive.php
            He’s obviously lying through his teeth to get around statues, so why would he not lie about everything else in that lawsuit as well? So yeah, I agree it would be insane if the Judge let it go ahead. The abuse of Michael Jackson’s name needs to stop somewhere. And don’t forget the consequences of such a public trial that it would have on MJ’s children. But like I said, you never know with the US legal system.

            I thought about whether it could be one of those cases when a therapist plants false memories in someone’s mind, but I don’t think it is. In my opinion it’s a case of greed, not a case of false memories. Wade knows damn well he wasn’t molested, unless he managed to convince his mentally ill mind since that he was just to convince himself he’s not doing wrong. But when I read his lawsuit it’s just so geared towards money, and lots of money (even if he does not name a sum, but he lists a lot of reasons why he should get lots of money), that I don’t think it’s about false memories, but a very conscious money grab.

            What I realized it that he says he first told about his alleged abuse to his therapist in May 2012. I wonder if it was the Sandusky trial that gave him the idea which was about that time. He claims anal rape, something that was claimed in the Sandusky case. (I think the Sandusky trial was in June 2012, but the case was prominent in the media in the months before.)

          2. “Plaintiff then suffered the first of his two (2) nervous breakdowns with the inability to function in everyday society. To help cope and find an answer as to what Plaintiff was going through, as he was unable to continue working whatsoever, he began seeing a cognitive psychologist on May 16, 2011, for approximetaly one (1) month. They discussed Doe 1, but Plaintiff did not tell [blocked] about their sexual activities.

            Plaintiff began to work again a couple of months later in mid July 2011 with his former sense of “invincibility”. But then he had his second and final nervous breakdown in March 2012.”

            This is what puzzles me–he did not tell (therapist’s name blocked) about the alleged abuse even though he talked about MJ (1st breakdown). So how did he suddenly get to recovering those so-called ‘memories’ in the 2nd breakdown??? Something is mission (a lot). Was it the same therapist in both breakdowns?

            I am not saying the therapist planted false memories–just that the therapist may have jumped to conclusions. I say that b/c this happened to me. I once read a therapist a poem my dad had written about my brother and based on ONE PHRASE the therapist told me my brother had been sexually molested by my father! I was so shocked.

            So Wade is not going to work in entertainment–so what is he going to do for a living? Just wait for the Estate to support him for the rest of his life??

          3. @iutd

            Yes, he went to two therapist. To the first, between April and August 2011 he says he did not tell anything about the alleged abuse. Then he has his second breakdown:

            “In March 2012, I had my second and final nervous breakdown which again included feelings of extreme stress, anxiety, fear and depression. I would look at my son and imagine him experiencing the sexual acts I did with Doe 1 – which I did not yet equate with being sexually abused – and, for the first time in my life, I wondered if I needed to talk to someone about what Doe 1 and I “did together”. I knew that I truly had no idea how I felt about it. I still thought that once I spoke to someone about it, I would be fine. In mid-April 2012, I began therapy with [blocked out] until May 8, 2012. On or about that day I first spoke to [blocked out] – and began to recognize for the first time myself – that Doe 1 had molested me. [blocked out] was the first person I ever told, ever. This realization initiated an enormous emotional, psychological, and physiological upheaval in my life that continues to this day.”

            To me the way he words it does not seem like the therapist came up with the idea. It seems like he went to this therapist already with the intent to accuse Michael. It’s a good question though why he swiched therapist. Did he specifically search out someone who would more prone to believe such an allegation uncritically? We know there are therapists who basically think that any allegation of sex abuse is true and blindly believe and support any such allegation (see Stanley Katz). For his lawsuit he needed someone who would be supportive of his claims as a therapist.

            BTW, the whole account is very strange. He says he was looing at his son imagining the sexual things that he alleges happen to him. But he still did not equate it to sexual abuse. Pardon me, but in his lawsuit he talks about anal sex, moreover anal rape. How he could not have equated it to sexual abuse? How could he ever mistake anal rape for “love” and not realize it until the age of 30 that it wasn’t? It doesn’t make sense to me. Any abuse is traumatic, but something as drastic as sodomy and anal rape is the most traumatic thing, there is no way a child, let alone as an adult, would believe it is “loving”. It’s painful, it’s drastic and it casues medical and psychologicl issues.

          4. “I still thought that once I spoke to someone about it, I would be fine. In mid-April 2012, I began therapy with [blocked out] until May 8, 2012. On or about that day I first spoke to [blocked out] – and began to recognize for the first time myself – that Doe 1 had molested me. [blocked out] was the first person I ever told, ever. ”

            Yes, I agree, Suzy, the whole narrative makes no sense at all. So until he talks to the 2nd therapist he still thinks if he talks to someone “I will be fine”–i.e. doesn’t realize that what happened (anal sex) was a sex act and inappropriate touching–riiight. So it isn’t til he talks to #2 that he “BEGAN to realize FOR THE FIRST TIME MYSELF’ that he had been molested.

            I still surmise that #2 therapist had a crucial role to play in this revelation. Notice the word “MYSELF”–for the 1st time myself–indicates that others had suggested it before to him but he didn’t see it that way?? He could have just said “for the first time” without the added word “myself.”

            This is too ridiculous when you realize what MJ was accused of in 2005. Wade is bonkers.

        3. Im thinking about what Wade said about MJ supposedly telling a 7 year old kid , they cant tell anyone or it will wreck their careers.
          That doesnt make sense at all to me, and then him saying that they would both go to jail??
          Jordan Chandler made accusations back then and Wade was old enough to realize, that he walked away with a fortune , and no jail.
          Didnt he wonder why MJ wasnt passing money out to him too.no settlements , no confidentiality agreements.
          There is a picture of Wade waiting in line to buy MJ album..He didnt even get a free album
          I just think the entire thing is ridiculous
          I think he not only wants money from the estate , because he couldnt live up to his potential, but he wants to tear MJ down a few notches too because he cant match his legacy

          1. @ Nan

            “I think he not only wants money from the estate , because he couldnt live up to his potential, but he wants to tear MJ down a few notches too because he cant match his legacy”

            That’s what I think too. The Nr 1 motive is money but I think there is also resentment (and probably it’s also a way for Wade to justify the whole thing to himself) and that’s what this “prophecy” claim reflects on in his lawsuit. It seems he now resents MJ because he was not able to achieve what MJ told he would and because he is a very pride man he needs MJ to blame for it.

            On Wade’s old website there was a forum and in one of the threads a girl asked someone who knew him (presumably his cousin) about what Wade is like as a person and it was interesting because this was the answer:

            “he’s generally very quiet, kind of shy, negative part is that he is very prideful – which can be very bad”
            “having pride to a certain extent is good but when you are too prideful i don’t think is a good thing. and i know for a fact that his pride is way too much for his own good. casuse i’ve known him for a while now.”
            “i’m not going to get into specifics but when he does something wrong he will never apologize, when it’s clearly his fault, he always has to get things his way no matter what, even if it hurts other people. sorry girls truth hurts sometimes. but it’s the truth.”

            “Jordan Chandler made accusations back then and Wade was old enough to realize, that he walked away with a fortune , and no jail.”

            This whole “we both go to jail” thing is a pretty much textbook child molester threat, so no wonder that both Jordan and Wade included it in their story (though Jordan claimed MJ told him that MJ would go to jail and Jordan would go to a juvenile hall – not jail). Thing is that Jordan said he did not believe it even then: “Well, I didn’t really believe it at the time, and I definitely don’t now. But at the time I didn’t really believe it but I said, okay, whatever, and just went along with it.”

            This answer is ridiculous in itself (“whatever, and just went along with it”? WTF?), as is the whole Gardner interview but that’s another subject, but Wade manages to make himself even more ridiculous when he says he not only believed it as a child but also still believed it in 2005! Even though MJ was on trial – and obviously Gavin was not threatened to go to jail.

            Some more things that make little sense to me:

            “In 2005, Doe 1 was criminally tried for child sexual abuse. I was again subpoenaed to testify. Doe 1 called me constantly and coached me by acting out similar role play as he did with me in 1993 when I was 11, telling me things such as, “They are making up all these lies about you and I, saying that we did all this disgusting sexual stuff. They are just trying to take US down, take away my power and my money, take away our careers. We can’t let them do this. We have to fight them together.” I would play along just as I did when I was 11.”

            And about 1993:

            “As soon as I was subpoenaed for my testimony, Doe 1 started calling me every day to coach me. He would tell me that our phones were tapped and “they” were listening to everything we said. He would role play with me and say to me, “They are saying we did all of that disgusting sexual stuff. We never did any of that, right?” I would play along and answer, “No way!” He would say, “If they believed that we did any of this sexual stuff, YOU AND I would go to jail for the rest of our lives. Our lives and careers would be over. We’ve got to fight this. We’ve got to beat them together.”

            Would a molester who thinks it was “loving” call it “disgusting sexual stuff”? And when you both know it happened why would he tell to you “they are making up all these lies about you and I”? Doesn’t make sense to me and I’m not even sure why Wade includes it, because it’s so off in the whole context of what he claims. I wonder if he has a tape with MJ saying these things and he tries to somehow twist it into the opposite of what it means – ie. saying that it was a “role play”. BTW, it’s ridiculous to think that such a “role play” would work on a 23-year-old the same way it would on an 11-year-old.

            And even when MJ called it “disgusting sexual stuff” it would not dawn on Wade that it wasn’t “loving” after all and that it was sexual abuse? But then his claim is that he was repeatedly anally raped and did not believe it was sexual abuse, not until the age of 30 when a therapist helped him realize that it was…

          2. I agree Suzy, I can see MJ saying to Wade , that these people are making all this disgusting stuff up about them to cut his power , because MJ believed they were doing this to steal his assets, cut his power…..that would make sense in a conversation , where you are innocent, and of course the other person knows nothing ever happened either.
            That is the shred of truth he uses and twists it..
            How can Wade say Mj said this was an expression of love and then say it is disgusting ..right again….just doesnt work.
            I think he also said he was a willing person in this , ( of course a kid cant be willing), but he says in the Today show that mj forced him to have relations or something like that .

            Wade answered specific questions in 2005 , and said he had never gone over anything he was going to testify to in court, he certainly didnt know what Zonen was going to do .
            He clarified points when Zonen referred to him and MJ as having “slept together” , to make sure there was no misunderstanding that anything was of a sexual nature, then confidently walked out of court flashing the the peace sign.
            It just doesnt add up , and this is the best scenario he can come up with to try and get money , since he had no future in the entertainment business.
            I bet he sat around for a couple of months thinking of how he let a winning lottery number slip through his hands in 94, because he told the truth and now MJ estate wont even hire him.
            So this is payback.on several levels to me.
            There is an old clip of Wade being interviewed on a beach and I would have to look for it , but I think? he says , he actually was alittle underage for the dance contest his mother entered him in , to meet MJ and of course , she is the one that dressed him..Once again it was Joy pushing Wade …All those interviews he did, where he is completely relaxed talking about MJ and what a wonderful person he is…..like you said , you can never tell what a judge will do…but if it ever got to court , I dont see anyone believing him…
            Seems to me most everytime the estate is doing something, TMZ carries some thing about Wade demanding info from the estate about past settlements or any accusations of improper behavior..
            I think he wants to try and bait them into playing this out in the tabloids, and I think they are too smart to play into it , and give him any more credence than he deserves..which is none.
            What a contrast to him saying what a wonderful Dad MJ was, and that was his priority, his kids should be proud..and because of MJ I still believe in human goodness or words to that effect.
            The only people he actually can hurt with this garbage are MJ innocent children and I guess , he is justifying it , by pinning it on the estate lawyers and people from Sony who supposedly didnt care..
            I have come to the conclusion that people can justify anything , if they really want it bad enough..
            .He could ,only think, he could have a shot with this , because of all the ridiculous rumors that surrounded MJ..In his 2005 testimony, he said he followed the trial off and on, if that is true , then he really may have come away with the impression he saved the day and didnt know the Francia family were shot down, because the tv shows didnt mention the cross , as I recall, just their accusations.
            It really is the ultimate backstab and unkindest cut of all , coming from this guy..Talk about anything for money

          3. @ Nan

            “I have come to the conclusion that people can justify anything , if they really want it bad enough.”

            Definitely. Mez said this too. That he’s seen a lot of crazy ways people justify the crap they pull.

            “Seems to me most everytime the estate is doing something, TMZ carries some thing about Wade demanding info from the estate about past settlements or any accusations of improper behavior..”

            There was no stone unturned in any of these cases so he will not find anything that hasn’t been discussed before. For all those past allegations they asked for they will get allegations by the likes of Daniel Kapon and Joseph Bartucci. Because those are the “other past allegations”. Good luck with those. People who never even met MJ, yet tried their luck by filing civil lawsuits against him… The way Wade’s lawyer reacted to the whole “FBI files” crap by the Sunday People shows how desperate they are for other “victims”.

            That request by Wade’s lawyers about wanting to see other past allegations was strange because the Judge has not even decided on whether the case can go ahead. Yet, they act as if they were already in the discovery phase. So it seems like some posturing for the public and trying to put pressure on the Estate.

            “The only people he actually can hurt with this garbage are MJ innocent children”

            Yes, and the fact that Wade pulls this on three orphaned children shows that he has no soul. In fact, I think he might be a sociopath. That quote I showed from his old website “he always has to get things his way no matter what, even if it hurts other people” points to that direction too.

            “It really is the ultimate backstab and unkindest cut of all”

            That it’s unkind is an understatement. This is the ultimate betrayal. I’m no religious person, but even in the Bible the betrayal of a friend is one of the biggest sins and people like Judas are considered the most evil people. Or in Dante’s Inferno people who betrayed friends are placed in the worst places of Hell. I do not believe in Hell, but it shows how evil the betrayal of a friend is considered historically. One can hardly get any more morally corrupt.

          4. Suzy, when the AEG trial started and all of a sudden , Adrian NcManus, is back being interviewed by tabloids, you could see something was afoot.Then here comes Wade.
            If he wanted “his truth” known , why wait, a year or so, until the beginning of that trial , and the promotion of the ONE show, if it isnt all money and damage, and giving him a sense of relevance and power.
            Why didnt he pop up on the TODAY show months earlier, if he didnt have any idea he could sue?
            Then of course , this person who cant function,sees doctors, lawyers. puts his house on the market ,goes on tv, goes back to LA, catches his flight for Hawaii and gets out of town.
            While I am sure he had his platform on the TODAY show and doesnt want to talk anymore , I think if he was still in LA, he would be on tape all over the place functioning just fine.Something he doesnt want recorded either.
            Why not tell the Jackson your revelation, so as to spare his completely innocent and vulnerable children any more pain,or his elderly mother, before going on a national show, out of no where..?
            After all, he and his mom helped Jermaine with his book.Why blindside all these people , and allow your lawyer to use horrible rhetoric calling MJ a MONSTER.

            That is why I think he must be angry with them , too..He wants to inflict pain.
            I wonder if he felt deserted by them also , when he was out of work, and the brothers were touring , and obviously Katherine and MJ 3 are set for life many times over..Were possibly going to make even more with the AEG trial..
            So I think he wants money , but he also wanted to drop a bomb on the Jackson team during the AEG trial, as well as the ONE promotion.
            When I heard them on TMZ talking abouthis lawyers,talking about Blanca saying about the shower , without the cross, …well I am still not sure , if his lawyers office just assumed Wade testimony is the only thing that would have disputed her story, or if it was just for negative publicity for the estate..Same with them supposedly being so interested in the tabloid story about ALL the supposed settlements.
            Roger Friedman and CNN came out and said that was false.
            I dont know if they didnt do any research or just dont care and still want to put out salacious innuendo, but all the investigations, point to shakedowns with false accusations and tabloid stories for money ..Not a pattern of bad behavior by Michael, but a pattern of false accusations for money..
            I cant believe that anyone who has done any research wouldnt see that Wade fits right in with that too.
            As I recall,in Sullivans book , the police had MJ phones tapped for a while before they did their 2003 raid on Neverland, they knew of his plans for the video, the release of music, and plans in Europe, which of course is why they picked that date for the raid., to ruin his life….but in the tapes, they didnt come up with anything of MJ/any one else like the unindicted co conspirators, incriminating MJ about abuse, or MJ talking to other young people of inappropriate things, and they certainly waited long enough , to make it a surprise attack.
            There is never any bad photos ,computers, letters , innappropriate gifts, phone calls,nothing.. ..the FBI files dismiss the story of the guy in England , Terry George? so all that is out there is Ryan White and Mj being taped , without their knowledge , and we see a CHILD that doesnt want to hang up and Michael , being really sweet and patient.
            They may want to threaten a court date but if I was them , it is the LAST place I would want it played out.
            Your thoughts on him being a sociopath seem entirely possible .though, that he hasnt considered any of these things before going forward with this garbage.
            Could be my imagination , but when Justin Timberlake was touring, recently, he always seemed to have the audience sing along to human nature, as a fond nod to MJ. I kinda took that as a show of support for MJ and a dis to Wade, since they know each other, and I believe Wade was supposedly backstabbing him too…
            Last time accusations were made, MJ was getting vilified left and right ,almost deserted.. and this time even Lionel Ritchie said it was BS, along with others , so I dont think it generated the firestorm of disapproval of MJ and in turn , the estates projects, they had hoped to , like the Chandlers were threatening MJ record/endorsement deals..I dont think this will go the way Wade imagined..Atleast I hope not.

          5. @ Nan

            “They may want to threaten a court date but if I was them , it is the LAST place I would want it played out.”

            Or if they really want to go to court they are really foolish and I do not think they see it through what it would bring on THEM, esp. Joy. Like I said before, they cannot have it both ways and accuse MJ’s companies and peoeple in it of allegedly enabling his alleged abuse and then turn around and act like Joy had nothing to do with it. Joy cannot come out looking good from a court case. If they accuse MJ’s companies of enabling the alleged abuse because they arranged for Wade to come to the US (and he does claim that in his lawsuit) then Michael’s side will call witnesses to talk about how it was Joy who was pushy about wanting to come to the US and who called Michael’s office every day to push them for arranging the green cards for them. There is plenty of evidence that Joy pushed for it very aggressively. Also if he accuses MJ’s companies and the people in it of turning a blind eye then why doesn’t he blame his mother of the same? He should be more angry with his mother than with anyone because she is his mother and it’s her job to protect him, not Branca’s, Weitzman’s or whoever he tries to blame now. There is no evidence Branca or anyone in Michael’s companies knew about the sleepovers but Joy definitely did and allowed it. But he is not angry with his mother. I have seen on Chantal’s FB that they all had BBQ together a couple of months ago.

            These are the kind of things why I do not really believe it’s a case of implanted false memories by a therapist. If it was then the whole lawsuit wasn’t so focused on the money – on how to get around statues with ridiculous claims such as he did not know about the administration of the Estate before March 2013 or on how to blame Michael’s companies and people in it (who are conveniently the same people who run the Estate now) while being mum about his own mother’s responsibility. He tries to blame MJ’s companies because even if his creditor’s claim is thrown out on statues the lawsuit against the companies could possibly go on. Everything in that lawsuit is just so focused on how to get to the money, while there is no sign of anger and resentment towards his mother. If Wade really believed he was abused, he should blame Joy the most apart from Michael.

            “Last time accusations were made, MJ was getting vilified left and right ,almost deserted.. and this time even Lionel Ritchie said it was BS, along with others , so I dont think it generated the firestorm of disapproval of MJ”

            Something like that is never good for Michael’s reputation because unfortunately there are too many people who believe every allegation that is made without even thinking of the possibility of it being false. Still, I agree that it did not cause the firestorm so far that Wade probably hoped for and it shows a kind of scepticism even on the generally anti-MJ media’s part. Even TMZ seems to be sarcastic to me whenever they write about Wade. Maybe I’m imagining things but that’s what I sensed in some of their articles. Of course, I do not put my trust in the media, they can easily turn on MJ when they realize that’s what generates more money, but so far I feel they do not really buy it.

          6. TMZ has indeed been very sarcastic towards Wade. That is one thing that really fueled a lot of his initial outrage against the media after the story broke-TMZ’s mocking of him. I’m sure that must have sucked a lot of the wind from his sails. TMZ is, of course, one of the worst media outlets for spreading MJ gossip and dirt, and they glory in it. But one thing I have noticed is that when it comes to Conrad Murray and Wade Robson, their position has been fairly consistent. Neither are especially likeable or sympathetic people. Murray is obviously a sociopathic fruitloop and Wade comes across as a shifty-eyed liar. Murray makes good copy as a villain because he’s just so laughable. I think Wade started to realize he was getting the same treatment, instead of the outpouring of sympathy and support he was expecting.

            I think it was one thing back in the 90’s and in the early 2000’s when you had these two kids supposedly making claims, but in this case it is a grown man whose timing and motives seem unusually suspect.

            As for Joy, the biggest thing we have to keep in mind is that Wade is after money. Even if we assume every accusation he’s made is true and his mother is just as guilty as anyone else if not moreso, it doesn’t change the fact that it is not his mother from whom he can extort millions. If his accusations were true, he could easily blame her privately but naturally he isn’t going to name her in a lawsuit because we can assume there is nothing to be gained for him in doing so. Still, if he was actually abused and simply seeking the kind of personal vindication/empowerment that he claims, then naming his mother in the lawsuit would certainly be a wonderful, symbolic gesture. But I’m sure he still maintains a good relationship with his mother, so that is not likely to happen. God help Joy if her relationship with her son ever does take a wrong turn, because he’s already proven how he deals with people in his life when he can no longer handle his own problems. He will visit a therapist and “suddenly remember” that his mother pushed him into show business. Lol.

          7. It is interesting that Joy is no where to be found..I dont believe Wade for one minute, but if, it is was true, he would have to blame her.
            I dont think she is mentioned in the lawsuit, because 1) he knows it never happened, so she isnt to blame for any criminal conduct, she is only to blame for pushing him into show business, and not having him get a good education, something to fall back on , if show business didnt work out for him 2) she doesnt have any money and 3) for me, is he doesnt want her to come to court and have to explain her testimony from 2005 saying she would call MJ offices to periodically remind them of Wade, and to see if MJ had any work for him, like videos and stuff, so once again, it is the Robson family pursuing MJ , not the other way around…And if he was having some illicit relationship with Wade, Mj wouldnt need to be reminded , he is still looking for work…
            This whole thing just reeks of ego, his failure to live up to , what his reputation in town was , because I do not consider him to have been a humble person, so having to walk away from that directors job, must have been humiliating…Blame , because he cant or wont blame himself for a failure, so it is going to be the most successful person he knows fault..Now he is playing victim and looking for money.
            Even the most confident people have experienced failure, but for Wade, it has to be someone elses fault and it has to be a dramatic breakdown as opposed to just not being able to cut it, and being out of work.

          8. @Raven

            I wonder if TMZ’s apparent scepticism regarding Wade has something to do with something that went on between them behind the scenes. I mean, to me it seemed that at first Wade’s side wanted to use TMZ as an outlet because at first his lawyer made comments through TMZ. And I think the whole lawsuit was also first reported by TMZ. So I wonder if Wade’s side at a point wanted TMZ to do something for them which raised a red flag for TMZ and that kind of made them sceptical about these people’s motives. But of course, it could be just that they read the lawsuit and it smells to them just like it does to us.

            As for Joy, I do not think it would only be a “symbolic gesture” to blame her in his lawsuit. If it’s true then it is NOT about the money for you in the first place, so whether he can sue Joy for money or not should be a side issue, if it’s true. Accoring to Wade’s narrative asking for money is a part of his healing, but healing in such a case should obviously be about a lot more than money (actually money should not be as much the main target as it is in Wade’s case). It’s also about confronting people who did you wrong and to let the world know you were wronged etc. You should feel real anger towards those people. So rather than it being a “symbolic gesture” anger and resentment towards his mother and the blaming of her should be very real. But Wade did not only not mention her in his lawsuit (only shortly and on neutral terms), but also did not blame her in any of his public outings – on Today Show, in his airport interview, in the interviews his lawyer gave to TMZ. His cousin said in his comment on RadarOnline that they mainly blame the people who “turned a blind eye” – even more so than they blame MJ! And those people are, according to him, the same people who “still profit off MJ’s Estate”. No mention of Joy again when if this was real she should have been the first they bring up as someone who turned a blind eye and Wade should be more angry with her than with the Estate people! Instead they BBQ together.
            And it’s also ridiculous that they blame the pressure to perform and achieve in showbiz fully on MJ, again with no mention of Joy either in the lawsuit, in Wade’s declaration or in anything they ever said about this publicly. Even though it’s well documented it was Joy, not MJ, who pushed and pushed and pushed him to be and and to achieve in showbiz. So to me it just makes the whole thing very transparent.

          9. It’s hard to say because it’s certainly not as if TMZ’s own motives are pure and above reproach.

          10. It just occurred to me – maybe Wade isn’t suing his mother because she’s the mastermind behind the whole scheme. That’s her lifelong MO, pushing and prodding Wade so that she can live out HER dreams. Until his psychotic break and heavy drug use, it worked pretty well. Maybe Wade ‘can’t’ work any more because he’s grown weary of living out someone else’s dream. Meanwhile that baby still has to be fed and clothed. Of course Wade could still earn a good living teaching and choreographing, but he probably thinks he’s above all that. As Tom Mesereau said, “Why work when you can sue Michael Jackson?”

          11. “It just occurred to me – maybe Wade isn’t suing his mother because she’s the mastermind behind the whole scheme.”

            That’s definitely a point worth considering.

          12. @ Simba

            I certainly would not put it past Joy that she’s in it with Wade. If she is then she’s as stupid as she is aggressively pushy, because she should have realized that this whole thing would make her look bad. And it will if it ever goes to court.

            But I can also imagine Joy and Chantal are just mislead by him. We would see that from how they support Wade in a court. For example, would now Chantal change her 2005 testimony and claim that she heard suspicious sounds when she slept in the same bedroom? If she would claim things like that you’d know she’s in it with Wade. But of course, something like that would just shoot her credibility just like Wade’s is shot, because if that is so then why didn’t she say that in court in 2005? Will she also claim that MJ played role plays with her too?

            “Maybe Wade ‘can’t’ work any more because he’s grown weary of living out someone else’s dream. Meanwhile that baby still has to be fed and clothed.”

            I do think that Wade has some kind of burn-out from showbiz and IMO that caused his breakdowns. And like you said he realized he still will have to provide for his family, so what should he do? Why not sue MJ with false child molestation allegations and try to hit the lottery?

          13. On the Robsons first visit to Neverland , not only was Wade mother and father there, his grandparents were too.And it was Wade that asked to hang around in MJ room with his sister..
            There is no way he can explain his way out of his testimony

        4. From Wade’s 2005 testimony (by Zonen):

          “1 Q. All right. But you slept in the same bed
          2 with him when you were seven years old; is that
          3 correct?
          4 A. Yes.
          5 Q. Was anybody else in that bed with you?
          6 A. My sister, Chantel Robson.
          7 Q. She was ten years old; is that right?
          8 A. Yes.
          9 Q. Is it true that there was not another adult
          10 anywhere in that room at the time you crawled into
          11 bed with Mr. Jackson?
          12 A. True.
          13 Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr.
          14 Jackson through the balance of that week during you
          15 seventh year; is that right?
          16 A. Yes.
          17 Q. Was your sister there the entire time during
          18 that week as well?
          19 A. Yes.
          20 Q. Was she in that bed with you as well?
          21 A. Yes”

          So, I’m guessing here, but I would imagine anal rape is quite painful to a 7 year old boy. Wouldn’t he cry out? Wouldn’t his sister be aware of something going on in the same bed? Wouldn’t there be blood somewhere (pyjamas or underwear) where his mother could tell something was not right? Makes no sense at all.

          1. Wade and Chantal’s father was at Neverland that week along with Joy. One wonders, why didn’t he object to his children sleeping with a stranger, which is what Michael was to them? Maybe he was so dazzled by Michael’s celebrity that his sense of decorum abandoned him. Or maybe, as a sexual abuse survivor himself, he sensed that they were in no danger. Either way, the Robsons are a very strange family indeed.

          2. @ Susan

            Absolutely. I think he probably tried to go for shock factor with this anal rape angle, but in reality he is very stupid to claim this and he only dug himself in a bigger hole with it.

      2. I never knew what to make of that story, either. It certainly seemed totally out of character for him, even with people he despised. Of course, I know Michael wasn’t always a saint by any means. There is a story, for example, of him encountering Chris Rock at a function and giving him a nasty glare. Chris Rock has told that story himself, and somehow I’ve never doubted it. In fact, it probably says everything about his ability for self-control that all Rock got from him was a dirty stare!

        There is also the story that he refused to shake hands with Eric Clapton (because of Clapton’s racist remarks about black people living in England).

        Michael DID have ways of letting his displeasure with certain people be known. And let’s not forget the well-known clip of Michael saying of Gloria Allred, “Tell her to go to hell.” But none of these stories go so far as intimating that he was in any way threatening these people (just letting his displeasure known, which is a totally different thing). This is why Diane’s story has an especial sinister ring to it, because the way she told it, it seemed implied as a threatening gesture.

        But this is all part of a deliberate narrative-which has been in effect for many years-to somehow denigrate Michael’s “nice guy” image and turn him into some sort of monster. Pushing such stories helps sell the agenda that Michael was NOT the nice guy we were all led to believe, and instead had a dark and sinister side (which, in turn, makes it much more palatable to spread dirt, gossip, and false accusations). They are doing it again, now, with the Jane Goodall story. Michael was known for his great love of children and animals. Now the agenda is to make him appear to be an abuser-of both. Everything that Michael ever stood for has been used, in some way, against him, and continues to be still.

        These stories also fail to take into account that when Michael usually acted in such an out of character way, it was usually after enduring much abuse and public humiliation from that individual. Who could blame him for occasionally lashing out?

        Michael was always in a no-win situation no matter how he responded to any given situation. If he responded by turning the other cheek, he was a wimp and a sissy. If he fought back or stood his ground, he was a monster.

        1. What is it with these ‘Britches’? Paul McCartney, JK Gosling, and now Jane Goodall have talent, money, and fame in abundance, but it’s not enough for them. They are compelled to denigrate Michael Jackson, after his death. You don’t see Americans of comparable stature doing that.

          In Goodall’s case, she’s just flat out lying – she never “confronted” Michael about “abusing” Bubbles. Her account of spending time with him was completely laudatory. (She mentioned lying on his bed with him in his bedroom. I guess we can expect a complaint and a claim on the estate for sexual harassment – or the lack of it!) Goodall is a scientist. Why she would endanger her professional reputation by reacting to an account from a two-bit Vegas mobster like Jack Gordon is a mystery.

          1. My spell check changed “Rowling” to “Gosling”! It is JK Rowling, billionaire author of the Harry Potter franchise, who dissed Michael.

        2. Wow – did not know that about Eric Clapton! I did a little research and his remarks were truly vile. Clapton owes his entire career to black music. I knew that MJ refused to meet with Elvis Costello because of his racist remarks, including use of the n word. Why would anyone expect a black man like Michael to shake hands and make nice with the likes of them? They were both lucky not to get publicly cursed out.

          As for Chris Rock, he complained that he was in a green room with Michael and Janet Jackson and neither one initiated conversation. He took that as a personal insult, instead of considering how shy they were. Patti Austin said Michael did not speak to her either the first time they met.

      3. I just thought I would put this here , in case others havent seen it.Just another example of Wade talking about going to Neverland and how great it was , when he was a kid..
        Lines up perfectly with what he said in court as well as his mother

          1. Yes it does, which means to me , he wants this played out in the tabloids , not a courtroom, to shake some money out of mj estate.
            I hope they dont settle this to make him go away
            Honestly , I cant imagine living his life.
            People call him paranoid..I dont think it is paranoia , when you see how just about everyone is will to completely flip on him , when money is concerned, because he was worth so much, it is generational wealth

    2. Suzy,
      No matter how many times I read Gavin Arvizo testimony, I always seem to find more contradictions.contradictions. Im just rereading the testimony you put up and noticed this part:
      Q. Was there one occasion when you actually ran into him by accident?
      A. Yeah.
      Q. Tell the jury about that.
      A. Well, I was playing with Prince and Paris outside, like in the back of the house near where the arcade was. And then we were walking into the — into the main house. And I knew the code, because they would give me the codes..
      ———
      wasnt that supposed to be a big deal, how these kids got the codes, like MJ told them, how to get into his bedroom?
      Seems , from what he is saying here , he got the codes from Paris and Prince, which would make sense since the were , young and trusting kids.
      Honestly, every time I look at this stuff, I have more contempt for the prosecutors .
      They essentially ruined MJ life , putting him through this, but they had no regard for Gavin , either.

      Most prosecutors will take an honest look at a case , and if it is not winnable, they wont subject an alleged “victim” to an unwinnable trial.In this case, it was obvious, this kid was made to lie , and yet they went ahead with a wink and a nod, all so they could revisit the Chandler accusations, which fell apart , when viewed by unbiased jurors..

      oam, the DA was using obviously false accusations to justify getting to a accusations from 93 , he believed , in , imo, because he had a vested interest in becoming a celebrity DA, with book deals , etc, possible higher office , that he thought had been snatched from him , with a settlement.
      The reality is, MJ was never going to be tried ,in a criminal court, because , the description Evan and Jordan Chandler came up with , did not match MJ private areas, and it was only JC making accusations.
      The fact that Sneddon, would continue to troll for victims, instead of looking into Evan Chandlers motivations says alot about just how ambitious he was..
      It just isnt as good a story , if the famous person isnt guilty

  8. And one more thing about Bashir’s agenda. In that 2006 GQ article about Victor Guiterrez it is claims that VG helped Bashir with his “documentary”. The article does not state which one – because there was another “documentary” Bashir made about MJ directly before the trial. But I am curious of whether this claim has any truth to it. It would explain a lot about why Bashir wanted to go in the direction that he went. Why he wanted kids at NL, why he narrated it the way he did etc.

    1. Yes. I acknowledged that we do not know for certain if Michael ever actually said this. That’s why I have a question mark at the end of the post title. But in that case, anything Michael ever said-unless we have recorded evidence of seeing it come straight from his own mouth-is conditional to the source it supposedly came from. There is never any way to know for sure.

      I think Taraborelli is a reliable source for some things, but by no means all. I will admit I tend to cherry pick from him what I find useful or intriguing, while discarding a lot of it. His biggest flaw is that, like all MJ biographers, he has an agenda, and the facts he presents, whether by conscious or unconscious design, are going to be in support of that agenda.

      Like most MJ biographers, I take anything gleamed from him with the proverbial pinch of salt.

      1. Re Taraborelli–one of the funniest things was when he is sitting in a network studio being interviewed about how close he was to MJ and what an expert he is, and he was not invited to MJ’s funeral, which they were covering.

        He worked for the Enquirer–to me that says it all about where he is coming from–the tabloids.

  9. Gavin Arvizo’s religiosity, and his claim that he “only admired God”, stand in stark contrast to his actions. I remember when Madonna, of all people, said, “Publicly humiliating someone for your own gain will only come and haunt you. I can assure you, all these people will be sorry. God’s going to have his revenge.” Ironically, this kind of sentiment only matters to believers. Somewhere in the back of his mind, Gavin Arvizo knows he’s going to have to pay for what he did. He just doesn’t know when and how.

  10. I would not be a bit surprised to learn that both Jordan Chandler and Wade Robeson were molested at some point — not by Michael Jackson — but by someone else during their young lives. Wade had to negotiate the oily and smarmy path to success, a path also littered with predators. The molester may have been a relative, a talent agent, a manager or someone with valuable access in the business. Evan Chandler yearned to be a ‘player’ among the stars rather than clean their teeth; June wanted the luxury, glamour and attention show business afforded. Both IMO felt embittered and deprived of their rightful place in the spotlight. Enter Michael Jackson by accident, but no less the answer to their prayers (and a sitting duck). Jackson was tailor-made, complete with a well-known propensity for befriending kids. Joy Robeson sounds a typical ruthless show business mother of a talented son. Wade learned early how to ‘people-please and sparkle’ on cue. Joy is determined to live her thwarted dreams through her son. She auditions Wade into a spot where he’ll be seen by the King of Pop — the contact dreams are made of. Show business is rife with greedy, ambitious parents short on scruples. Countless show business children, past and present, have paid the price. Years later, Robeson has a career-crippling anxiety episode which he says is traced to previous child molestation. He is looking for someone to blame and from whom he can seek financial restitution. He throws up his hands in despair and victimhood and names the deceased Michael Jackson — the very rich and deceased Michael.

    It’s despicable that a heinous crime which twists so many lives can be used by cheats to accuse the dead and try to extort money from their estates.

  11. I don’t think Gavin’s personality provides any evidence whether his allegations were true or not. A crime is proved through evidence & a victim who doesn’t listen to their parents and masterbates is the same as a victim who doesn’t know about sex. I just don’t see how that could prove he wasn’t or was mollested. Although it could be entirely true this was a set up, In my opinion, a person’s personality has little to do with whether they were a victim or not. I’m sure lots of people who have masterbated & who have had intercourse before are abused just as much as any other, innocent naive people get abused just as rude and worldly people get abused. The information about the mother and her other manipulations is good evidence that shows a pattern, but saying that he was unlikeable, masterbated and was a hoodlum isn’t really evidence to me & doesn’t seem very relevant. It just seems like a tool to persuade & takes away from the better more factual parts of the argument.

    1. “I don’t think Gavin’s personality provides any evidence whether his allegations were true or not…”

      That isn’t the point of the article. The point of the article is that it doesn’t seem as though Michael ever even liked Gavin Arvizo, let alone molested him. His personality certainly played a huge part in that. As far as evidence goes, this case was dragged out in a five-month trial, and MJ was acquitted. The point of this post isn’t to re-try the case, but to look at the fact that MJ was slowly distancing himself and cutting the Arvizos out of his life as a possible motivating factor for their allegations.

  12. Ok lets say MJ was a serial pedophile who molested tons of kids. Even if he didn’t molest Gavin, was Gavin and his family justified in what they did to him? no they weren’t. False allegations is never right because it makes it harder for real victims to be believed.

  13. It’s unbelievable that two families lied to extort money from Michael Jackson and had no charges brought against them. Both sets of parents were simply evil and twisted. They saw a pay day at the expense of Michael Jackson’s reputation. Michael Jackson never molested or touched either one of those boys and everyone saw the scam. Of course we have people who jump at an opportunity to try to knock the all time crossover KING OF POP down a peg or two because they are haters and evil spirited. But god knows the truth. People who lie to this extent will have to answer. When you make deals with the devil he comes calling for a payout. That’s why one of them killed himself. These people were and are a poor excuse for parents. Both families are bottom feeders who who use their own children to extort a celebrity. The reporters should have written a story about that instead of hounding Michael. He was brilliant, a man beyond the time in which he lived. No one gave the Jackson family anything, that family earned every dollar they have. I guess other people don’t have what it takes so they prefer to try to steal it. Oh, but the good news is it did not work. Say what you want Michael settled the first case not by his doing because he said he would never pay them a dime…. And the document states that the settlement does not admit guilt. He just wanted the accusation to go away before he was destroyed. Clearly people wanted to place a nasty stain on his legacy, however, smart people know it was all fabricated. The Jackson family has the truth on their side and always handled this nonsense with grace. I believe he was a clean spirit when he passed and is in a better place now. God rest the most talent singer, songwriter and performer I have ever seen.

  14. What is most painful is that Gavin enjoys life, a family, while Michael was tormented in the last years of his life due to this unfair fact and ultimately died young simply being flooded with stress and sleeplessness, relying on powerful medication to cope with the pain.
    But saddest of all is that three children were left fatherless tormented by the lies which surrounded their father while he was alive. Paris even tried to commit suicide several times following MJ’s death. Another aspect is that the good man rots in the ground with no chance for him to see his children grow up like or to be close to them in crucial moments of their lives, even to see his grandchildren.
    Selfishness of some destroyed someone else’s family and future plans forever. Michael can not be revived, no sum of money can do that, he is only a memory for those who loved him.
    Why ? Just because he wanted to help a child with cancer.
    VERY SAD.

    1. Yes, it most definitely is. BTW sorry that your comment was held for moderation. It does that if it does not recognize the IP or email address. I have been very bust lately and have not had much time to check in like I used to. I hope you did not have to wait too terribly long.

  15. Too bad the wedding photos of that bastard have been removed (probably by the bastard himself). Hate might be a strong word, but it’s nothing more, nothing less what I feel about that bastard Gavin Arvizo and his disgusting family. May he burn in Hell.

  16. This bastard and his family are still alive happily?
    What’s the reason of God to keep them alive and instead, took away MJ from me?

Leave a Reply