On October 1st Robson and Safechuck’s new lawyer was on a radio show, talking about the amended complaint at Robson case and the below exchange happened with the interviewer. (You can read the full interview and our commentary at this blog post).

Alan Gurvey: Don’t people suspect that under those circumstances there is a pay off when people testify? I know with my cases there is a lot of interest whether one side or the other, I always question the interest. I won’t have a witness testify because I know they are not going to be honest because of one reason or another.

Vince Finaldi: You know what I can say number one is, hang tight and watch the press in about 2 - 3 weeks. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

4 weeks later on October 25th, they delivered on their threat. There was a woman this time. She was claiming to be abused as a child and she also claimed she was paid money to keep silent. She had letters and checks from Michael to prove her claims. TMZ reported it first. As usual the law firm did a press release with the complaint file and exhibits attached. The lawyers did several media interviews as well.

While a female accuser was an unexpected twist, these lawyers attempt to fish for more so called victims didn’t surprise us much. In July when Robson first hired these lawyers, one of the very first thing they did was to send Estate a letter (and of course did a press release with the letter attached to alert the media). In that letter they referred to media – actually let me correct myself – tabloid stories about multiple accusers and settlements and asked Estate to publicly release the names of the “little boys” that alleged abuse and the settlement monies paid. They did this even though the same question was asked and answered during past discovery and it have shown that the only accusers and/or settlements were already publicly known (Chandler, Francia and Arvizo). Completely ignoring the discovery, these lawyers started their fishing as well as trying the case in media from day one.


Furthermore a simple google search showed that this was their M.O. An article named SHOCK STORY: Notorious Church-Suing Lawyer Obtained Clients by Phoning Parishioners and Fishing for Victims explained this great detail. The article explained how these lawyers hired a woman to make unsolicited phone calls to parishioners to fish for victims. The lawyers explained this as investigating but admitted that they got their first victim in that case by making unsolicited calls and asking people if they saw something odd. After they got their first victim and getting a settlement with the church, they continued to make unsolicited calls to the parishioners. One person said this:

[One recipient said] she was given the 'strong impression' that if she said her son, now 32, was interested in filing a lawsuit, 'they would have jumped all over that. They were going to find something (against Kelly), regardless if there was any cause for action.'

All of this makes me think, that’s exactly what’s happening here as well. A little search to their legal practice shows that these lawyers sue churches or schools for sexual abuse claims and settle most of the cases. We also know their love for trying the cases in the media from their press releases with the court documents tactics. So when you add it all together, it’s not that surprising that these lawyers coming up with alleged victims – or more correctly people who are willing to say they are victims for a nice payout. Then do a press release, give interviews and so on to hopefully create enough negative publicity to force Estate to settle. By now their game plan is quite obvious.

“Where did they find this woman?” some fans ask. In their exhibits they added a letter from a Los Angeles detective dated 1994. In this letter the detective was mentioning criminal investigation about allegations of child abuse. We know that during discovery these lawyers were given documents from the previous investigations. So the name of this person was probably in those documents. Case summary of the Robson case shows that people related to Jordan Chandler including his sister was recently deposed. So it’s logical to assume that they were calling to talk to the people – especially kids – mentioned during past allegations. There might have been an exchange about how they are representing two other accusers. It might have helped this woman to have an epiphany in September 2016 about her alleged abuse.

Two things we learn from this episode: Prospect of millions does wonders for your memory and they probably run out of boys willing to make accusations. Either way it’s desperation.

Some people might think the more “victims” come forward the more believable the accusations become. I believe the more absurd the claims become it reduces the believability of all the other accusations. Especially when all the accusers are being represented by the same lawyers with questionable tactics and a love for a media circus.

I’m not going to spend much time on the complaint file. (Although you can find complaint file here and the exhibits here). Compared to Robson and Safechuck’s claims this complaint is short on specifics. It provides almost no detail about this woman’s interactions with Michael, MJ Companies and the employees of Michael. “We met, he called me, he abused me, and he paid me”. The rest is a copy paste from Robson complaint. At times it’s a quite irrelevant. For example for Robson they alleged that Michael was teacher/mentor. And it might make some sense as Robson was actually hired by the MJ Companies. The same claims are also copied in this complaint word by word with no explanation of how and what for MJ was a teacher/mentor to this woman. Not only it’s sloppy lawyering, it also shows the desperation again. We know that they can’t sue Michael anymore so they need to try so hard to make this fit to a negligence by the companies. Even though it makes no sense at all.


Two things I want to mention is how she realized the abuse in September 2016 and why didn’t she come forward before. They claim she was threatened with physical harm, feared people around Michael such as Frank Dileo. They claim she was paid around $900,000 for compensation for sexual abuse. They state “in beginning of September 2016 while reflecting on the sexual abuse for the first time in her life she reasonably discovered the psychological injuries”. They also state as a reason why she came forward now is that she discovered that Robson wasn’t physically injured for his complaint. See the contradictions? Well which one is it?

Tell me, did she not come forward before because she was paid to keep silent? Or she didn’t come forward because she believed she will be harmed physically by the people around Michael? If she was scared into keeping silent, why was she paid?

This becomes even more interesting once we look to another radio interview this lawyer did in September 2016 (soon to be posted).

Host: Was he (Robson) paid off to not spill the story?

Finaldi: Absolutely not. He was not paid for example you go and say no and then I’ll give you x amount of money. That did not happen.

So if Robson was “brainwashed” to think his abuse was “love” and he wasn’t threatened with physical harm, and he wasn’t paid, why didn’t that "grooming" work with this woman?

Tell me why did she need until 2016 to realize people who make accusations against Michael don't get physically harmed? She was 20 years old during Chandler and Francia accusations and settlement. They weren’t harmed physically. She was 31 in 2005 when Arvizo accusations and the trial happened. He wasn’t harmed either. Michael died in 2009. Frank Dileo died in 2011. Dileo stopped being Michael’s manager in 1989 and wasn’t around until 2009, that’s 20 years. Robson filed his claim in 2013. Safechuck filed it in 2014. So tell me why did a grown adult woman needed until 2016 to realize people don’t get physically harmed for accusing or suing Michael?

I also need to add it’s quite convenient to badmouth another deceased person Frank Dileo. Like Michael he is not here to defend himself. This is also the reason why you can’t sue deceased people.

Furthermore in an interview with ABC7, the lawyers claimed she needed therapy as she suffered from psychological, mental and emotional distress. Complaint alleges that she can’t perform even the daily activities and cannot have full enjoyment of life. Again which one is it? She had ongoing psychological issues or she didn’t realize the psychological injury until September 2016?

I know some will correct me and say that’s not what they are saying. They are claiming she didn’t realize her psychological injuries were related to the alleged abuse. However that’s still a quite moronic argument. How can any reasonable person experience traumatic sexual abuse, threatened and fear physical harm and experience all that serious psychological issues but not realize they are connected? You don’t need to be a rocket scientist or psychologist to connect a traumatic event with psychological effects. All you need is a pea brain. That’s all.

It’s no coincidence that this absurd realization of Jane Doe happened after these lawyers took over, when they are suing a deceased person that isn’t here to defend themselves over 20+ year allegations at a multimillion civil lawsuit. The timing is quite convenient wouldn’t you agree?

In a CBS LA interview, the lawyers give another reason for why she came forward now.

The lawyer says “The Jackson camp was saying, ‘Well, you know, he didn’t only have boys around. He had girls around him. And there were girls at Neverland. And there were girls in his bedroom. And he’s never sexually abused a girl. She said: ‘Well you know in fact, I’m a girl, and he sexually abused me’.

What Jackson camp are we talking about? The recent cases are being handled by MJ Estate and there has not been any mention of any girls. It has been all about statute of limitations, demurrers and so on to get the case dismissed. Those cases haven’t arrived to defense arguments stage yet. The argument they refer here was made during the 2005 trial. It’s not recent. So this woman heard those arguments from 2005 and waited 11 years to say “hold on I’m a girl and I was abused”? Again this is all way too much convenient timing and it’s no coincidence.

Another gem the lawyers told CBS Los Angeles is this “she was an extreme tomboy when he first met her. He may have believed she was a boy at first”. Let’s assume this is true. Let’s say he believed she was a boy when he saw her outside the gate with her brothers. How about later though? Was her name gender neutral? All that conversations etc. didn’t he realize she was a girl? I can’t help but wonder if they realize how stupid their explanations sound?

Once you read the documents, listen to the interviews, you feel that these lawyers even not making the effort anymore. I mean at least Robson had a narrative. I don’t believe any of his explanations but at least he had a story - He had a nervous breakdown, he had another, and he went to therapy. Safechuck’s was much weaker – he didn’t realize his abuse until Robson came forward but a decade ago he was telling his mother what a bad man Michael was. This complaint is worst all over the place for the above mentioned reasons. It can only be explained as “let’s throw everything to the wall and see what sticks”.

As to the so called evidence, it doesn’t mean anything. The correspondence is a regular correspondence. Michael kept in contact with many fans. Handwritten notes by Michael are dime a dozen. The gifts from his personal assistants are mundane merchandise items. That brings us to the checks. Two checks ($2,500 and $150,000) are actually payment of invoices. One of those invoice checks ($150,000) is written to a friend of the woman. Third check ($10,000) is paid for entertainment.

The other two ($130,000 and $600,000) are cashier’s checks with no remitter information. (Remitter is the person/entity paying for the check). Cashier’s checks are written and signed by the banks. While those checks show Jane Doe as the person receiving the checks without remitter information it’s not possible to determine who sent that money. Furthermore this makes no sense. If you want to pay someone to keep silent, there are ways to make sure that there is no paper trail, it doesn’t come from your companies, business managers. It’s called CASH. The $600,000 check was written after the Chandler allegations and a criminal investigation had started. Jane Doe had gotten a letter from LA Detective only one month later that check was sent. Do they want us to believe that Michael was sending checks with paper trail to an accuser while he was under criminal investigation for another accusation? Please. 

I also want to remind you of Ray Chandler’s book. He wrote

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”[Page 128]

“Barry told him no, but suggested again that Evan might be willing to take the original million dollar offer if Pellicano was willing to renew it. “It’s never going to happen,” the investigator insisted.” [Page 121]

All Chandler’s wanted was money. They demanded $20 million but they were even willing to take $1 Million to keep silent. So tell me if Michael was willing to pay Jane Doe close to $1 Million to keep her quiet about the alleged abuse, why didn’t he pay the Chandlers to keep them quiet? Nothing they claim makes sense.

Finally the fans wonder who is this woman? Complaint gives us some info and a redacted picture. They state she is filing under a fictions name to protect her privacy. They may even argue MJ fans as a reason to not disclose her identity. Given how public Robson is on the social media, I don’t think fans are an issue. Media doesn’t seem to care much about these cases and they probably wouldn’t report much on it if these lawyers stopped sending out press releases. So why the secrecy? I think they don’t want us to know her identity because there is something they want to hide. Could it be that she was also interviewed and defended Michael over the years vigorously? Time will tell.