Micky Jackson in trouble again

sligeach

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Excellent article. I note the author of the piece, David Walsh.

is_that_so

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Don’t personally understand how you could watch that last night and play him on Spotify this morning. I won’t be listening to his music again anyway.

Yeah, he gave us Billie Jean but he touched those kids.

In all likelihood this will pass as it will with many others. You can go with the rigid boycott but if you have a love a music you'll end up as "hypocritical" as everyone else.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Make a claim, post it up.

Waiting for the evidence where the judge called the two men liars. Come on boggles, take your own advice!

Call me Al

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry do you think there is anything in the documentary that even comes close to giving balance? :pac:

Safechuck said his one main fear was being exposed to the public, so he stuck his name down on a billion dollar suit with the bould Wade and made a documentary. That will keep it private all right.

I asked you a simple question to support this balance you mention. I'd have appreciated a fairly simple answer.
It's not that hard to understand!
Both men were very credible to me. I watched that as a fairly neutral observer.
I'm neither a megafan nor a hater. Can many posting here say the same?

SirLemonhead

retro:electro wrote: »

Waiting for the evidence where the judge called the two men liars. Come on boggles, take your own advice!

Do you not have anything better to be doing while you wait for the poor guy to check back in?

retro:electro

SirLemonhead wrote: »

Do you not have anything better to be doing while you wait for the poor guy to check back in?

“The poor guy” is still posting he’s just avoiding my question

And nope

is_that_so

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Yep but isn't his music still played? There's definitely a bit of hypocrisy going on but I guess people say "ah shur different times". They definitely say that about the 1960s and 70s when it seems anything went, legal or not. And I'm not defending it by the way, I just find it strange that some are banned, while some continue to be hailed as legends.

They were different times with a different set of values. The set of values some now use are very different and apparently vastly superior. As for banning things, beyond the intention of offending or inciting dubious behaviour we are free to change the station or stream it ourselves.

is_that_so

Call me Al wrote: »

I asked you a simple question to support this balance you mention. I'd have appreciated a fairly simple answer.
It's not that hard to understand!
Both men were very credible to me. I watched that as a fairly neutral observer.
I'm neither a megafan nor a hater. Can many posting here say the same?

Ascribing a perceived unverifiable view of yourself is not exactly incontrovertible anything. We all bring baggage to this. You seem to like the superior "moral" question.

Fiftyfilthy

Always believed and still do that the parents were hoping their kids would be molested $$$$$$$$

Call me Al

is_that_so wrote: »

Ascribing a perceived unverifiable view of yourself is not exactly incontrovertible anything. We all bring baggage to this.

It's just that some have bigger bags :-((((((

Ashbourne hoop

sligeach wrote: »

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Excellent article. I note the author of the piece, David Walsh.

It's a great piece.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

“The poor guy” is still posting he’s just avoiding my question

And nope

Jaysus, keep your panties dry. I'm not your personal secretary.

https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Petition-to-Compel-Arbitration.pdf

The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements

retro:electro

Try again Boggles. I’m looking for the quote from the judge where she called “ the two men ” liars.

ToBeFrank123

I didn't watch the documentary. I've better things to do with 4 hours of my life than watch a doc about Michael Jackson or any individual for that matter.

However if someone is accused of something they deserve to defend themselves and put across a defense. That's what would happen in a courtroom. Accusers should be cross examined to see if their story holds water.

I didn't hear of any of that happening in this documentary from what I have read. Sounds like some puff piece interviews where they are allowed say what they want without any serious cross examination. A competent lawyer would tear their stories to shreds in a court in a matter of minutes if they were bullsh*tting.

One sided documentaries are not the way to put someone on trial, dead or alive. He may be guilty, he may be innocent, but a situation where witnesses can say what they like without cross examination is not a proper trial. At best its a kangaroo court.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Try again Boggles. I’m looking for the quote from the judge where she called “ the two men ” liars.

I just gave you a legal document filed with the Supreme Court of California.

Now I know it doesn't have soft lighting and sad background music.

But sure what can I do.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I just gave you a legal document filed with the Supreme Court of California.

Now I know it doesn't have soft lighting and sad background music.

But sure what can I do.

No you gave me an anecdote written by a bias third party about one of the men you’re taking about. Where’s the evidence she called them liars? Specifically Safechuck?...

You refereed to both men, remember..

Deebles McBeebles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Don’t personally understand how you could watch that last night and play him on Spotify this morning. I won’t be listening to his music again anyway.

Yeah, he gave us Billie Jean but he touched those kids.

That's a valid POV but have you done that with all other artists you like who have had allegations made against them? Remember, they are just allegations from a documentary you watched (half of) last night. Some of them have even been ruled against in court.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

That's just a bunch of pony though isn't it?

Yeah there is a stencil for victims of abuse but it is not a blanket covering every case that has ever existed and all answers are neatly arranged there.

The two men have been asked very simple questions under deposition, they couldn't answer and when they did they were all over the place, basically they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Alleged victims of abuse definitely deserve to be heard, but equally they deserve to be scrutinized.

Or do we just dispense with fact finding altogether and anyone that makes allegation is believed without doubt, because HBO told us?

.

Agree fully. Jackson's guilt or innocence can only ever be decided in a court case where each side has a fair representation, can cross examine, question witnesses and evidence. If these guys want to challenge his estate in court that's where the issue can be resolved.

retro:electro

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I One sided documentaries are not the way to put someone on trial

Those criticising it for being one sided are being every bit as bias as they believe the doc to be because they’re closing themselves off to at least hearing all of the information. If there was a documentary to the contrary I would absolutely watch it. Now granted I probably wouldn’t change my mind but how can you be sure you’re truly objective in your views unless you’ve heard all sides. (I can say this as I’ve read all the mj defence there is and find it unconvincing at best) I guess some people would just rather not know.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

Those criticising it for being one sided are being every bit as bias as they believe the doc to be because they’re closing themselves off to at least hearing all of the information. If there was a documentary to the contrary I would absolutely watch it. Now granted I probably wouldn’t change my mind but how can you be sure you’re truly objective in your views unless you’ve heard all sides. (I can say this as I’ve read all the mj defence there is and find it unconvincing at best) I guess some people would just rather not know.

That documentary is literally one side of the story. You're better off not seeing it if you want to be unbiased.

ToBeFrank123

Just as a reminder about credibility.
2 million pounds was spent on operation Midland in the UK after detectives had deemed the testimony of the main witness "Nick" as credible.

After several years it was wound up when Nick was discovered to be a fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2016/nov/08/operation-midland-report-into-mets-sex-abuse-inquiry-published-live-updates

Likewise Cliff Richard had his career all but ruined in a very public manner. He too was innocent.

I'm not saying the two witnesses in the MJ docu are similar to "Nick" but credibility should not be judged on face value. You need hard evidence to support it or multiple independent witnesses who have never met each other before and who give independent accounts which are fully investigated not by a film maker but my professionals.

Deebles McBeebles

sligeach wrote: »

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Excellent article. I note the author of the piece, David Walsh.

Just finished that, cheers, great read and very informative.

retro:electro

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

That documentary is literally one side of the story. You're better off not seeing it if you want to be unbiased.

Plenty have seen it and their MJ shrines have remained intact so I don’t think that’s at all true.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Agree fully. Jackson's guilt or innocence can only ever be decided in a court case where each side has a fair representation, can cross examine, question witnesses and evidence. If these guys want to challenge his estate in court that's where the issue can be resolved.

This pretty sums it up, from the document lodged with the Surpreme Court.

By 2013 and 2014, they were in financial dire straits. Safechuck was in serious need of money, the failed dreams of a successful acting and music career having long since passed him by.

For his part, Robson was at the end of his choreography career. He had burned so many bridges that the only thing he had left was his connection with Michael Jackson.

But in 2011, the Jackson Estate had turned him down for the lead choreography job in a Cirque du Soleil show, a job that he told Cirque he “wanted badly.”

By 2012, Robson’s wife was threatening to divorce him because of his
inability to work.

It was just then in his 30s that he came to the stark realization that anally raping a child was wrong and he needed a billion dollars.

Grifters!

LuckyLloyd

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

That's a valid POV but have you done that with all other artists you like who have had allegations made against them? Remember, they are just allegations from a documentary you watched (half of) last night. Some of them have even been ruled against in court.

I'm starting to. I understand that there were charges ultimately thrown out in court because of the difficulty of proving beyond reasonable doubt in that setting.

However, it is inarguable that he had objectively unhealthy friendships with young boys of an obsessional nature. It is inarguable that he was allowed access to those boys that would objectively trigger alarm bells today. It is inarguable that he shared a bed with those boys in an unsupervised fashion. It is also a matter of public record that court ordered searches of Neverland returned materials of boys with little or no clothing. The materials were not illegal to own at the time, but would be now.

All of that is beyond suspect and, to be honest, more than enough to indicate that Jackson was a weird and troubled man. He avoided prosecution in court, but the two men telling their story in this latest documentary are highly highly credible. I bought their stories as truth. And ultimately, within the inarguably weird context above, you need some level of belief to think that his relationship with young boys could have been entirely innocent in nature.

His handlers and those working for him who facilitated all of this have a huge amount to answer for imo.

retro:electro

And the proof the judge called both men liars? Come on. Surely mjisbaeforlifexoxoxo.blogspot.com has something you can pull from?

innuendo141

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Agree fully. Jackson's guilt or innocence can only ever be decided in a court case where each side has a fair representation, can cross examine, question witnesses and evidence. If these guys want to challenge his estate in court that's where the issue can be resolved.

This is where the interesting bits would come out. Their previous testimonies contradict what they are saying now. Robson has emails back and forth to his mother asking her to describe times they were with Jackson in order to write the book he tried to shop before the claims were lodged. If they get to court, they will need to fave up to this. They could have legit answers, but they should have been addressed in this documentary because it has left out how serious the credibility issues are with these two. This could have quenched all those questions over them.

ToBeFrank123

He had an unhealthy friendship with boys. He also had an unhealthy friendship with a monkey. He probably shared a bed with the monkey.

Unhealthy friendships are not hard evidence of anything, unless he's going to be accused of touching the monkey next.

I'm not trying to demean abuse, I'm just saying in this case there's no hard evidence. The police investigated him and searched his house and at most found adult porn.

Until we see multiple independent accounts, not motivated by financial gain and also hard evidence, people are rightly going to keep an open mind.

A documentary is not a court trial so lets not pretend it is.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

Plenty have seen it and their MJ shrines have remained intact so I don’t think that’s at all true.

You obviously have a bias and yet are telling everyone else they do and your comments about "MJ shrines" don't help your argument. How is it true the documentary you have seen half of is not biased? Its 2 guys, who may or may not be telling the truth, and its being presented to the world as ground breaking new evidence so HBO can make some money.

You've been sucked in.

joe40

Could you imagine a global personality nowadays, living with "Children" in the manner that Michael Jackson did. There would be serious alarm bells going off. I'm not talking about the allegations just the stuff in the public domain.

I can appreciate people enjoying his music, but his behaviour was way beyond normal or healthy. You can point to his own upbringing, that may be a reason, but not an excuse.

I like his music but there always had a shadow of suspicion over him, so could never understand the adulation he receives
Even if abuse never happened that was not a healthy life experience for those kids. He is accountable for that (Along with their parents)