Michael Jackson’s Accuser Wade Robson Slammed Over Claim Police Found Explicit Photo of Child at Neverland Ranch

The lawyers taking on Michael Jackson’s accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, fired back at the claim law enforcement found sexually explicit photos of children during a search of Neverland, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, the legal team representing Jackson’s companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, in the lawsuit brought by the two accusers dropped the bombshell in court this week.

Robson, 41, and Safechuck, 46, sued Jackson’s companies claiming they were sexually abused by the musician when they were children. Robson said the alleged abuse started when he was 7. Safechuck said his alleged abuse happened after meeting Jackson when he was 10.

Jackson’s companies denied all allegations of wrongdoing in the case.

Recently, the lawyers representing Jackson’s companies slammed Robson and Safechuck’s lawyer, John Carpenter.

They asked the court to force Carpenter to follow the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

“John Carpenter has been on a press tour, making numerous statements about this case to multiple media outlets. Mr. Carpenter’s statements are not simple reports on the progress of the case or a factual recitation of events in court. Rather, he is making incendiary claims and accusations that have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the jury pool in this case in favor of his clients and against Defendants,” the motion read.

They added, “Mr. Carpenter’s attempts to try his case in the press, and not in Court, are antithetical to the fair administration of justice, in violation of Rule 8.4. The parties are effectively at the beginning of this case; Mr. Carpenter cannot be allowed to disregard his ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct by continuing his tactic of running to the press at every opportunity between now and trial to make whatever inflammatory and provocative statements he can to advance Plaintiffs’ case and attempt to poison the jury pool against Defendants.”

For the past couple of months, Carpenter has publicly slammed Jackson and his estate.

He called the upcoming Michael Jackson biopic an attempt to rewrite history and show the late singer in a positive light without referencing the serious allegations made during his lifetime. He told The Daily Beast, “[The estate’s] sole existence to live and exist is to make money.”

He added “And so the movie is just one piece in their efforts to rehabilitate and rewrite the history of Michael Jackson and what he did to James, Wade, and other children.” In another interview, he compared the legal team representing Jackson’s lawyer to the team for Donald Trump. He claimed they both tried to delay the case as long as possible. He believed the lawyers wanted Robson and Safechuck’s trial delayed until after the biopic was released.

Carpenter slammed the motion over his public remarks. He called the motion filed a “stunt motion” that was brought to “attract attention and prejudice the court against” Robson and Safechuck.

He claimed, “At its heart, though, Defendants’ motion fears the public knowing that police found Jackson to be in possession of child pornography. This is not reasonably in dispute. Plaintiffs’ counsel has lodged with the Court the deposition transcript of Frederico Sicard, a retired LAPD detective. One of the transcript’s exhibits, identified as MES031710, is a photograph of a naked prepubescent boy with his genitals exposed in a sexually furtive pose that was seized by the police from Jackson.”

Now, the lawyers on Jackson’s side are firing back at the claim.

They said, “Knowing his clients consistently maintained, under oath, over decades, in court, to the police, and in public, that Mr. Jackson did absolutely nothing wrong—only to now reverse course decades later after seeing dollar signs and suing Mr. Jackson’s companies for millions of dollars—Mr. Carpenter has resorted to unethical and false extrajudicial statements for no purpose other than to unfairly influence the jury pool in his clients’ favor.” The lawyers deny the claim sexually explicit photos of children were found at Neverland.

The motion read, “Plaintiffs attempt to justify Mr. Carpenter’s claim that the authorities had seized ‘child pornography’ from Mr. Jackson by claiming that statement is not false. But not only is that statement false but Mr. Carpenter knew full well it was false when he made it. As stated in the Motion, the FBI’s own files confirm there is no evidence whatsoever that any child pornography was seized from Mr. Jackson. The FBI report dated January 14, 2004 (after Mr. Jackson’s property had been searched in the lead-up to his 2005 criminal trial), the FBI described several telephonic meetings confirming ‘there is no indication at this time that there has been evidence of child pornography collected…’” Further, “Plaintiffs speculate that the “FBI didn’t discover any child pornography” because it was the state authorities that collected it, not the FBI. Again, this is false. Plaintiffs either failed to read the FBI report or are attempting to misrepresent it. The FBI report was clear that the FBI stood ready to examine any child pornography collected by the state authorities. There was none collected at all, by the FBI, by state authorities, or by anyone.”

“Plaintiffs ignore the FBI’s contemporaneous report of what was actually collected by law enforcement, and instead rely on the decades-old memory of a police officer at one of Mr. Jackson’s properties when it was searched. Plaintiffs then cite one picture produced during this case. But that photograph is of unknown origin and there is no evidence it has any connection to Mr. Jackson at all,” the lawyers explained.

“Further, again, even assuming this picture was collected as part of the search and is connected to Mr. Jackson, the unalterable fact remains: according to the FBI, there was never any child pornography collected.”

They asked that the court take action and force Carpenter to cease making such statements.