Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Jane Doe, her claims against Michael Jackson and those highly suspicious cheques....

So today; we're greeted with the news that Michael Jackson has yet another alleged victim. This time this is a female who prefers to call herself "Jane Doe". She alleges that Michael abused her at the age of 12 years old, at Hayvenhurst. According to court documents; the abuse continued right through puberty and at 16, Michael wrote cheques in order to keep her quiet.

He even sent her little "love letters" as alleged in a report by TMZ.

Well let's first look at one of these so-called love letters.

Okay, the first thing which strikes me is the signature. There is something definitely very off about it, in particular the M in "Michael" and the L. Let's look at a copy of his real signature.

Michael's signature is definitely more "compact" and slopes to the left. So why then does the signature on the love letter slope to the right? For a man who has been regularly signing his name for many years; why would he suddenly change the direction of his signature? I smell a forgery.

Then there is the placement of the "I". In every other copy of Michael's signature I've looked at; the "i" is much closer to the "m" to the point where on the occasions he does dot the "i", the dot is lost in the end of the "m", as you can see below:

And again, in both of the above examples; we see the signature sloping again to the left. 

Now let's look at the court documents in which Jane Doe makes her claims. In it; she claims she "suddenly remembers" the psychological injuries caused by the alleged abuse some 30 years later. Doesn't this all sound very familiar? Wade Robson "suddenly remembered" this abuse as did Jimmy Safechuck. And of course it is no coincidence that the lawyers acting for Jane Doe are the same ones acting for Robson and Safechuck.

But now we come to the big reveal. Now when I first saw the cheques which claim to be the "hush money" Michael supposedly paid her; the first thing which struck me was the fact that she still has possession of these cheques. Now why, if she'd been "paid off" would she still have them? Cashed cheques are retained by the bank. In the event they are not honoured, they are returned to sender.

Then of course there's the fact that we don't see the back of the cheques, where the recipient has endorsed them. And of course, as you look at the images below, there's no name and address of said recipient.

But wait...there's something else wrong with this, especially the first cheque. All cheques have to display the cheque number. And the bank encodes the cheque number at the bottom. But if you look closely at the first cheque; the cheque number and the encoded cheque number don't match.

At the top right of the cheque, the legible numbers read: No: 165538. But let's look at the encoding at the bottom left hand corner of the cheque; which SHOULD be the same as the cheque number. But it reads: 169535. Does not compute.

So what do we really have here?

Well I'll tell you. On 7th October, Wade Robson was granted his amendment to his claim. This wasn't made widely available in the media because his lawyers were already "fishing" for a third victim to bolster his already very weak case. The fact that the amendment was granted is not unusual. The judge will often give the plaintiff every chance to prove their claims. But the amendment does also mean that the Estate can now file a demurrer to have the case thrown out of court. And as we've already talked about the many weaknesses this case has; it is obvious that Robson's lawyers are doing  everything they can to avoid this case being thrown out.

There's also the fact that IF this case makes it to trial, it still has more holes in it than swiss cheese. The fact is; Robson's lawyers don't want it to get to trial, because they know the case is going to be utterly destroyed by the lawyers for the Estate. Far better to get the Estate to scream "uncle" and settle out of court, hence Robson's legal team repeatedly use their weapon of choice - the media.
If they can't find Michael guilty in a court of law; they'll attempt to find him guilty in the court of public opinion.

Yet these obvious fakes do very little to bolster their case and instead; chip away at what little credibility they have. Let's not forget that in a recent interview; Robson's lawyer used Wikipedia as a case reference and even then was wildly inaccurate, stating that the abuse allegations against Michael are not mentioned on the site. It only takes a very quick read to see that they are and in detail, for that matter.

Apparently  Vince Finaldi got his law degree from a Christmas cracker...or Wade Robson found them on Craigslist.....

ADDENDUM: Further research and with the help of various other advocates (big thanks to MJJ Justice Project!) here's a picture of Michael and his latest accuser. Take a look at the hand - and ask yourself when Michael suddenly grew a second set of fingers. Shoddy cropping job - a blind man could have done better! Oh, and a fellow advocate did run the image through an analysis program to see if it had been edited. The results? PROBABLY. I'll let you draw your own conclusions...

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

Robson V MJ Estate - Unravelling as we speak.

So now we see that Wade Robson's case against the Michael Jackson Estate is starting to unravel and at great speed. And here's a few points to consider:

September 2016 saw Robson suddenly decide to amend his claim, as we already know. In his amended claim, he chooses to drop the childhood sexual abuse claim against the Estate and instead alleges that Michael's business entities, in particular MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures were negligent in failing protect him from Michael Jackson.

Yet there is only one problem with this:

At the time of the alleged abuse, Michael Jackson was in fact a 100% shareholder of MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures. He created and owned BOTH corporations.

Robson alleges that both corporations were negligent in protecting him from Michael, as Michael was an employee. How is this possible? That would then mean Michael Jackson as BOSS of MJJ Productions/MJJ Ventures would then have to protect Robson from Michael Jackson as EMPLOYEE of MJJ Productions/MJJ Ventures. Unfeasible, since only Michael had the power to hire and fire at both corporations.

Next we look at Robson's move to amend his claim:

Fact is; the only time the plaintiff can amend a claim is when they have new evidence to support their amendment. We still don't have any evidence of the alleged abuse by Michael Jackson, hence the reason for dropping that particular claim. But what about the claim of negligence? Again, we are still to see Robson PROVE this.

Simply put, unless there is any new factual allegations with regard to the sexual abuse, Robson cannot amend his claim and given the information as detailed above, the amended claim doesn't hold any water in any case.

Finally we come to perhaps the most explosive part of the Robson V MJ Estate case. You will remember that Robson decided to hire a new lawyer. And why was this? Take a look at the screenshot below:

That's right - Robson's previous lawyer WITHDREW from the case. Now why would a lawyer withdraw from such a case? Quite simply; because they don't see a) this case getting to court in the first place and b) the case resulting in a successful win.

But determined to get his grubby mits on Michael's money; Robson hires a new lawyer who decides that the best cause of action, is to launch a media smear campaign in order to hold Michael Jackson's legacy to ransom. In layman's terms, Robson and his lawyer are pushing for an out of court settlement. Of course, the new lawyer is aware that this case has more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese. So the alternative is to report every single detail to the media, in the hope that the MJ Estate will scream "UNCLE" and offer a hefty payout.

Unfortunately for Robson, the MJ Estate are not about to do that. Like the rest of us; they want Robson to have his day in court where the defence will DESTROY him. I for one am actually looking forward to it.

I see various directions of where this is going to go. We already know that Robson's current lawyer is more interesting in trying the case in the Court of Public Opinion rather than a Court of Law. It is my gut belief that the case will either be completely dismissed on the grounds of the above. Or that should it miraculously get to trial (not confident it will), Robson will be utterly humiliated when he's proven to be a liar.

The hearing for amending the claim is due on 7th October and this will be an indication of whether or not this case will make it to trial. Either way; it is unravelling faster than a badly knitted sweater - and growing weaker in the process.

Note: Thank you to for sharing these case notes on their recent blog post.