Micky Jackson in trouble again

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

I'd imagine without doubt given the evidence against his father.

But he would have lost a 100m on not fulfilling the contractual obligations of finishing his tour.

But we have been through all this haven't we?

You know, if I was Michael Jackson and I was accused of something so egregious that I was sure I could be found not guilty of, I’d take that loss. He wouldn’t have been broke afterwards, even losing that money. Probably not even close. And royalties would continue to roll in. So yeah, my good name would be worth that price. But hey, that’s just me.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You know what savvy means, right? Divorcing his parents if they were abusive? That’s savviness, right there. You literally including an example in your post.

I think the poster was arguing that the parents weren’t savvy (as described) rather than Culken.

Also as Cullen had the Sabine’s to emancipate himself from his parents and make public their behavior it would seem that if there was any abuse by MJ he wouldn’t have held back there either.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You know, if I was Michael Jackson and I was accused of something so egregious that I was sure I could be found not guilty of, I’d take that loss. He wouldn’t have been broke afterwards, even losing that money. Probably not even close. And royalties wouldn’t continue to roll in. So yeah, my good name would be worth that price. But hey, that’s just me.

Yeah, he stated several times he regretted it, it was a big mistake.

But it wasn't just 100m, he would have probably sued for multiples of that.

But like you said easy being an unattached randomer on the internet 15 years later pontificating how you would do something that doesn't effect you or your family in the slightest.

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

He was absolute cat nip for a serial predatory pedophile.

I dunno - I believe Culkin, but like obviously we don't know, so maybe you're right.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Never heard of that.

I did read that allegedly when on the Bad tour in Cork, Sam Smyth and Eamon Dunphy were in the Jury's hotel where Safechuck was staying with Michael Jackson and they wrote 'Little Jimmy' a letter.

Something to do with Safechuck having his own room with a do not disturb sign and the windows blocked out and them just finding the relationship a bit concerning.

Yes, that was commendable of them, if true.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Still not answering the question.. they didn't actually seek monetary compensation did they? And they still haven't sought to gain financially from the accusations, all these years later.

Maybe they were a bunch of criminals (Jackson sure knew how to pick these kinds of families. Weird) but the fact is they didn't and haven't sought money on the back of the allegations. So it kind of casts doubt on the "they were all in it for the money" line

Investigators involved in the case, psychiatrists specialising in child abuse, and child protection agents who interviewed him all found Gavin arvizo to be a credible witness. But what do they know I guess.

Yup.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

Which unbiased blogs have you been reading?

You made the claim, back it up.

I have honestly only ever heard of 5.

:rolleyes: I will not, go look yourself!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

I meant that he has come out and said he was never abused or witnessed any. Which is the biggest (imo) indicator that it’s false. But if MJ was an abuser, yes, his so called favourite for want of a better word would have been a target. I think posters accusing others of being paedophile sympathizers to be way creepier.

Maybe he was, but his own (at the time pretty huge fame) could have been enough of a deterrent.

Child abusers are often very careful in who they choose. As creepy as the thought is, likely many other children are considered but filtered out for various reasons.

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

:rolleyes: I will not, go look yourself!

Why would I? It's your claim.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, he stated several times he regretted it, it was a big mistake.

But it wasn't just 100m, he would have probably sued for multiples of that.

But like you said easy being an unattached randomer on the internet 15 years later pontificating how you would do something that doesn't effect you or your family in the slightest.

Now, now, no need to get personal. You have no idea what has happened in my life to form my views.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Now, now, no need to get personal. You have no idea what has happened in my life to form my views.

I didn't get personal.

Your experience or views have absolutely no relation to the point I made.

The only way they could be is if you are Michael Jackson, which you are not obviously.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

Why would I? It's your claim.

You’re the one who wants to know

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You’re the one who wants to know

That's what an internet forum is, you stick up a claim, you get asked to back it up. It's not new.

But you are obviously just on a WUM.

So as you were.

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, that was commendable of them, if true.

It's a shame people didn't speak to Michael and put an end to the sleeping with children altogether.

ceadaoin.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

It's a shame people didn't speak to Michael and put an end to the sleeping with children altogether.

He was advised by numerous people to stop sharing beds with children and to stop with the affectionate public displays but it seems he was unable/didnt want to. Even after being accused he didn't stop. You might almost call it a compulsion.

joeguevara

Boggles wrote: »

That's what an internet forum is, you stick up a claim, you get asked to back it up. It's not new.

But you are obviously just on a WUM.

So as you were.

I had a look. 6 publically accused him but the trials lost by them, settlements made where no truth was established and testimony that has been found to full of errors makes that much smaller.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He was advised by numerous people to stop sharing beds with children and to stop with the affectionate public displays but it seems he was unable/didnt want to. Even after being accused he didn't stop. You might almost call it a compulsion.

No doubt some would read that as him being confident in his innocence. :rolleyes:

Boggles

joeguevara wrote: »

I had a look. 6 publically accused him but the trials lost by them, settlements made where no truth was established and testimony that has been found to full of errors makes that much smaller.

From what I have read there was 5.

Chandler.
The Maids Son.
The Fraudsters Son
And the 2 boys.

The tabloids ran a story about some English guy that Jackson rang up and told him he was masturbating or something, allegedly happened in the 70s.

BBFAN

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This was posted on the other thread. Is this not literally defending and minimising paedophilia? "It didnt happen but even if it did, it's not that bad because it was love, ok!" These are the lengths that people are willing to go to defend Michael Jackson. I mean, why? I don't get it

That post was not only made by a paedo sympathiser by a straight up paedo.

Surely they were banned for the crap??

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

From what I have read there was 5.

Chandler.
The Maids Son.
The Fraudsters Son
And the 2 boys.

The tabloids ran a story about some English guy that Jackson rang up and told him he was masturbating or something, allegedly happened in the 70s.

And maybe at least 2 more who never went public. Interesting that one of these previously had defending jackson and denied any wrongdoing.

In addition, they said their investigation--an enormous undertaking that took 13 months, involved two grand juries and relied upon interviews with more than 400 people--had turned up two more children who said Jackson had molested them, but they too were unwilling to take the stand.

One of those alleged victims is outside the country and thus outside of court jurisdiction, Sneddon said. In addition, Sneddon said, that child had previously made comments generally denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, which would have complicated a prosecution based on his statements even if he had been willing to testify.

The other child said he was molested three times by Jackson and has been in therapy since last fall, Sneddon said.

"After conversations with the counselor, conversations with the child and conversations with the child's attorney, they have expressed their reluctance to go forward and be a participant in a situation where charges were filed and the child was the sole witness against Mr. Jackson," Sneddon said. "I am honoring that request on the part of that particular child victim."

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And maybe at least 2 more who never went public. Interesting that one of these previously had defending jackson and denied any wrongdoing.

Sneddon? He is about as reliable as a chocolate kettle.

But I imagine he is talking about Chandler who fled the country.

Boggles

BBFAN wrote: »

That post was not only made by a paedo sympathiser by a straight up paedo.

Surely they were banned for the crap??

I imagine if indeed true, it was either a new reg or a troll or in fact both.

ceadaoin.

BBFAN wrote: »

That post was not only made by a paedo sympathiser by a straight up paedo.

Surely they were banned for the crap??

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine if indeed true, it was either a new reg or a troll or in fact both.

No it wasn't a re reg, they weren't banned and yes it is true (why would I make that up ffs). it was a person who has posted in this thread recently too. Embarrassing. I hope they're on a wind up with that crap otherwise it's just disturbing

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Sneddon? He is about as reliable as a chocolate kettle.

But I imagine he is talking about Chandler who fled the country.

No, he is talking about another child. They address Chandler in the article too

https://www.latimes.com/la-me-michael-jackson-lawsuit-22-sept-94-story.html

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No, he is talking about another child. They address Chandler in the article too

https://www.latimes.com/la-me-michael-jackson-lawsuit-22-sept-94-story.html

Link doesn't work.

But honestly I wouldn't believe anything Sneddon said, he obviously had huge issues, to the point where he had it in so much for Jackson he put a family of grifters on the stand.

Anyway there is enough information out there for people to make up there minds without bringing "phantom victims" into it solely on the word of the guy that was trying to prosecute him for over a decade.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No it wasn't a re reg, they weren't banned and yes it is true (why would I make that up ffs). it was a person who has posted in this thread recently too. Embarrassing. I hope they're on a wind up with that crap otherwise it's just disturbing

I think I know who you are talking about.

I wouldn't pay any attention to him.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine if indeed true, it was either a new reg or a troll or in fact both.

Nope. The person who posted it joined boards.ie in 2012 and has posted over 19,000 times. The post is still there.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

That's what an internet forum is, you stick up a claim, you get asked to back it up. It's not new.

But you are obviously just on a WUM.

So as you were.

Says the poster who sticks up so many claims it’s laughable, for instance ‘she went to prison for fraud, afaik’ No one bothers to ask you to back it up because all your nonsense comes from pro MJ blogs :rolleyes:

Also, as you were??? Right......

Flippyfloppy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nope. The person who posted it joined boards.ie in 2012 and has posted over 19,000 times. The post is still there.

What is/was the post?

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nope. The person who posted it joined boards.ie in 2012 and has posted over 19,000 times. The post is still there.

Oh right, just read it, it's down right creepy all right.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Link doesn't work.

But honestly I wouldn't believe anything Sneddon said, he obviously had huge issues, to the point where he had it in so much for Jackson he put a family of grifters on the stand.

Anyway there is enough information out there for people to make up there minds without bringing "phantom victims" into it solely on the word of the guy that was trying to prosecute him for over a decade.

Had it in for Jackson = doing his job and trying to get a conviction? Honestly I'd believe the word of people like Sneddon and others who were actually involved in the case. He was a well respected public official, I know the Jackson camp tried to paint it like he was doggedly going after him for some personal reason but that's clearly nonsense. I saw an interview with him and he makes it clear it wasnt about that at all. He believed the kids and was trying to do what he was paid to do, nothing more than that. What do you mean he had "huge issues"? He seemed fairly normal to me, no frothing at the mouth or hysterical or even angry that he failed to secure a conviction or anything like you'd expect from a crazed MJ hater lol. If anything he seemed upset on behalf of Gavin Arvizo that he had to go through all that for nothing. All in all, just a normal person