"Wade robson is telling the truth. Understand victims r brainwashed and humiliated. He has his own money and when his son born he realized!"
“PREACH! As an educator the way ppl are reacting to this man galls me! Their vitriol is why victims don't tell!”
"I agree.. To tell the truth is humiliating& taxing.The birth of his son helped him overcome this trauma. He has my support!"
“He has mine also. i refuse to shame a rape survivor. Which is what he is”

@dailyark, @TeacherLady83, perhaps you need to be enlightened on a few things concerning Mr. Wade Robson. @dailyark, you claim that Wade has his own money, but perhaps you are unaware of the fact that he hasn’t been getting much work and, by his own admission, is living off his savings which are sure to eventually run out. Now one would think that an out of work man with a wife and child to provide for would likely jump at a chance to make a large sum of money, wouldn’t you say? And of course, we can’t forget that he was employed by AEG, the same company that Katherine Jackson is currently suing, nor can we forget that Wade broke this story right when the AEG trial began and that AEG’s lawyer said that “ugly stuff” would come out. Now as you may or may not be aware of, Wade adamantly denied being sexually abused by Michael Jackson when questioned by journalists and law enforcement in 1993 and testified (of his own volition) in Michael Jackson's defense in 2005 in a court of law where he, under oath, again denied being abused and did so unwaveringly despite rigorous cross examination. Now ask yourself, if you were Michael Jackson and you were on trial for your life, would you allow somebody you allegedly molested for seven years testify for you in a child molestation trial? After all, no amount of “brainwashing” or “rehearsing” can guarantee that an alleged victim won’t slip up or breakdown when put under pressure when being interviewed by law enforcement or testifying under oath in a court of law.

Wade’s mother and sister, both of whom were also friends with Michael and were also questioned in 1993 and testified (under their own volition as well) under oath in Michael's defense in 2005, reaffirmed this and even went so far as to say that in all of the years that they had known Michael and had been around him and Wade, they had never once seen or suspected that anything inappropriate ever happened between the two (or anyone else). This is important to note since Wade was living with his mother and sister, and thus was constantly around them, throughout the seven years he claims he was being abused. Could they, despite their close relationship and proximity to both parties, have been so oblivious to Wade's alleged abuse for all that time? Why then would they, like Wade, have adamantly denied any wrongdoing on Michael's part if they weren't completely sure? One might argue that they may have been given incentives for their support, but they denied this as well.

Now to address Wade. When his legal team first put out this story, it was stated that he suffered from repressed memories that resurfaced after a mental breakdown early in March of 2011. Almost immediately people found the claim of repressed memories questionable and several videos were found of Wade speaking positively about Michael (even saying how he was looking forward to working on the Michael Jackson Cirque Du Soleil show) during and after that time. Then the story was changed so that the breakdown occurred early in March of 2012. Even with this new date, there is still a video of Wade from July of 2012 where he again speaks positively about Michael. There is also another video from mid March of 2012, not long after his alleged breakdown, where he is dancing to Michael's music. Now before you attribute this changing of dates to a simple typo, ask yourself, how could such a glaring mistake be made about such a sensitive issue with the potential to destroy either Michael's or Wade's reputation and legacy.

The story was changed yet again when Wade went on the Today Show and stated that it wasn't a case of repressed memories and that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn’t recognize it as abuse. He also claimed to have suffered not one, but two mental breakdowns within the first 18 months of his son’s life. Being that his son was born in November of 2010, that would be anywhere from late 2010 to early 2012. However, as we established, Wade continued to sing Michael praises within that time span. He also claimed that Michael brainwashed him by telling him that the alleged abuse was an "expression of love" and that he would rehearse with him over the phone about what he would say to the authorities back in 1993 and to the court in 2005 during the trial. In addition, in his official court documents filed in June of this year, Wade again changes the story to say that he didn’t realize he was abused until May of 2012 and claims that the abuse started when he was five after previously saying it started when he was seven. This is a lie in any event since Wade had only briefly met Michael at a meet and greet during the Australian leg of the Bad Tour when he was five and didn’t spend any personal time with him until he was seven. Now if Wade is telling the truth, then why does he keep on changing his story? This to me is not indicative of someone who being truthful.

Now it is important to remember that in 1993 and in 2003 to 2005, and the years in between, Michael was under intense investigation by the LAPD, the FBI, Interpol, the DCFS, and etc. due to the other allegations (and after all that investigating, none of them found a single shred of evidence that Michael was a child abuser). Now what kind of fool would Michael have been to have done what Wade is alleging he did when he was under investigation like that? Wade alleges that he was abused from 1990 to 1997, so from 1993 to 1997, that is five years that he expects us to believe that Michael would be bold, foolish, or stupid enough to abuse him with so many eyes on him. He also expects us to believe that Michael would rehearse with him on the phone when the likelihood that their conversations were being monitored was extremely high and in fact this turned out to be the case during the 2003-2005 investigation and no such calls between Wade and Michael were ever recorded.

As for him saying that he didn’t realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse until recently, and that his breakdowns triggered this realization, I have only the following to say. In 1993, the Jordan Chandler scandal broke out and Wade, and his family, were approached and questioned by various parties including journalists and law enforcement (who made the seriousness of the allegations made against Michael abundantly clear) where he defended Michael and adamantly denied having been abused by him. Are we to believe that Wade would defend Michael and deny being abused by him in spite of constant and probing questions about the nature of their relationship by journalists and law enforcement (which in and of itself is often an intimidating prospect for a child) while he was actually being abused and not break down or waver in the slightest as most children who have been abused tend to do (and something that those who interview children in matters such as these are trained to pick up on)? Are we to believe that the same was true in 2005 when Wade was constantly probed about his relationship with Michael by the prosecution? Are we also to believe that he didn’t know or understand what sexual abuse was when he testified in 2005, despite the fact that he was a 22 year old adult? Keep in mind that Wade was engaged to his current wife at the time he testified in 2005 which would strongly suggest, along with his sexual liaison with Britney Spears (which resulted in the end of her relationship with Justin Timberlake), that he was a sexually active adult and thus should’ve been able to know what sex and, by extension, sexual abuse is. It is also important to remember that Wade has had a long career in the entertainment industry which, unlike your average occupation, is often far from innocent and is notorious for many of its shadier aspects, one of which is sexual abuse. I therefore find it even more unlikely that he didn't realize what Michael allegedly did to him was sexual abuse if it actually happened.

It is even more important to note that when Wade testified, he was asked very specific questions about his relationship with Michael including what kind of physical contact occurred between them. Not once, despite the prosecutor’s best attempts to make him slip up, did he say that anything inappropriate ever happened between them. Also, if he said that he always remembered the alleged abuse but didn't see it as abuse until now, then why when asked specific questions about what kind of physical contact he had with Michael did he deny that there was ever any kind of intimate contact between them (which there would have to have been if Wade’s allegations are true) instead of saying that he had indeed been intimately touched but that he didn't see it as sexual abuse? What reason would he have had to say anything else if he truly believed there was nothing wrong about what he alleges happened between him and Michael until now? After all, in 2005, and even in his interview on the Today Show, he maintained that nobody forced him or paid him to lie. To me this is proof positive that he either knowingly lied back then or is knowingly lying right now. I’ll go with the latter.

Now as you may or may not be aware of, a British tabloid called The Sunday People and The Mirror came out with a story about FBI files that showed that Michael paid off 24 boys that he molested. In actuality, these so called “FBI” files were nothing of the sort. They were transcripts of interviews compiled by a tabloid journalist, a former porn star, in the 1990’s who paid his sources and even made one up. These transcripts were acquired by a private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, working for the Jackson defense team. 10 years later, Pellicano was prosecuted for wiretapping and is now in jail. The FBI seized all of his files of which these were a small part. The allegations noted in the Sunday People and Mirror article were from an interview of the LeMarques (ex-employees of Neverland). They were willing to sell their alleged story about Jackson to the tabloids. As the price tag went up (possibly as high as $500,000), they continued to embellish their outlandish tale. Investigators in the 1990’s found the couple to lack credibility. In desperation, when his case was on the skids, Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon put the LeMarques on the witness stand in Jackson's 2005 trial. Their testimony was destroyed under cross examination and a very conservative jury rejected their testimony. This “FBI file” story was quickly debunked by a variety of news sources including the following; http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/03/showbiz/michael-jackson-files/index.html, http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/07/michael-jackson-lawyer-tom-mesereau-never-paid-millions-silence-abused-kids/, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/30/michael-jackson-fbi-files-are-from-people-discredited-long-time-ago, http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/30/michael-jackson-slimed-by-british-press-heres-the-real-story-from-2005
Michael’s actual FBI files were released in 2009, which you can see online on the FBI’s website, and they vindicate him more than anything else. It is interesting, however, that when this story first came out, Wade proclaimed that those so called “FBI” files proved his allegations and asked his lawyers to get a hold of them. After the story was disproven, however, he was suddenly silent. Now for him to say that this “FBI” file story is proof that he’s telling the truth only tells me the opposite and shows how desperate he is, and shows the lack of substance his case has. Wade also tried to reach out to a maid who worked at Neverland, Blanca Francia, who claimed to have seen him showering with Michael. Wade himself denied this in 2005, but her story was discredited regardless because she admitted that she had been paid for her story and admitted to have only seen and heard one person, Michael, in the shower in a deposition in 1993. The fact that he is trying to use this person to bolster his case is, to me, another sign of desperation on his part. He also claimed that his father killed himself over the thought that Michael had molested Wade. It is important to note that Wade’s father died in 2002. That’s three years before Wade (and his sister and mother) testified in Michael’s defense, and eleven years before Wade suddenly realized that he’d allegedly been abused, and let’s not forget all the positive things Wade (and his family) said about Michael in the years before, in between, and after. His claim about his father is therefore nonsensical and further proof of his desperation in my opinion.

I also want to bring up how Wade claimed on the Today Show that he wasn’t doing any of this for money, and yet he filed BOTH a creditors claim and a civil lawsuit against Michael’s estate. This is not indicative of somebody who is not after money. In his civil lawsuit, Wade is suing the executors of Michael’s estate (John Branca and John McClain), MJJ Productions (Michael's record label which hired Wade when he was 11), and MJJ Ventures (which produced Michael's music videos) and 46 other defendants associated with these entities who have yet to be identified. Wade filed this lawsuit against the aforementioned parties on the grounds that they were responsible for protecting him and should therefore answer for the alleged sexual abuse he says he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson. Now my question is this; if Wade is telling the truth about his alleged abuse and is now out to make the parties that were responsible for his protection answer for their failure to keep him safe, and not to collect money, then why does he not appear to have taken any action against his mother considering that she was more responsible for his safety than any of the other parties being sued? After all, Wade was a minor at the time this alleged abuse occurred, and thus his mother was legally responsible for his well being. His mother also testified in Michael’s defense and said that she trusted him completely and that she never saw or suspected that he harmed her son or anyone for that matter. She, like Wade, continuously defended him for years and approved of Michael’s relationship with her son. If Wade is to be believed, that would mean that Joy’s continuous approval, trust, and defense of Michael and his relationship with her son (even after Michael was accused of and investigated for child molestation, because what responsible parent would allow their child to associate with someone accused of child molestation unless they knew for sure that that person was innocent) helped make it possible for any alleged abuse to occur thus showing her to be an unfit parent and thus making her culpable, if not liable (considering that Wade is now an adult), for Wade's alleged abuse. My other question in this case would be that if Wade's mother isn’t being held accountable for his alleged abuse, why can parties like MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions be held responsible considering that it was through Wade's decision (with his mother's approval and acceptance) to personally associate with Michael outside of the confines of his business relationship with the pre-mentioned parties that he was allowed to be made vulnerable to any alleged abuse by him? Now if Wade truly wants to make those who were responsible for protecting him answer for their alleged failure to do so, would it not make sense for him to take at least some kind of action against his mother? I can only speculate at this point, but could it be that perhaps there is more money to be had for Wade by suing these other parties rather than his mother? In my opinion, if Wade is being completely truthful about not making his accusations for money, then the fact that he's willing to play the blame game and point the finger at these other parties and yet not place blame where blame is due in regards to his mother tells me just the opposite. What do you think? Taking all of this into account, is it any wonder why most people don’t believe him?