Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123

tigger123 wrote: »

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

Of course I wouldn't. Nothing about MJ was normal, nor it seems about the kids parents who let him share the bed.

Does it mean he raped them? Again, you'd need a bit more proof.

re the parents, at least one or two saw an opportunity and sadly used their kids as bait to get money out of Jackson either through financial help or suing him. Not all of them were like this but it seems clear some were.

tigger123

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think anyone (who is not taking the piss) is brushing off the behavior, it is down right creepy behavior compared to not just social norms today, but norms back then.

It's people who think that behavior automatically equates to child rape are the ones brushing off any other possible reasoning.

Jackson has explained it himself as have many people who have grown up with him and spent considerable amounts of time with him.

Again that's brushed off.

The behavior isn't in isolation though. It's set against a context of allegations of sexual abuse that are being leveled against Michael Jackson.

I watched Part I last night and found it pretty disturbing tbh.

tigger123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't. Nothing about MJ was normal, nor it seems about the kids parents who let him share the bed.

Does it mean he raped them? Again, you'd need a bit more proof.

re the parents, at least one or two saw an opportunity and sadly used their kids as bait to get money out of Jackson either through financial help or suing him. Not all of them were like this but it seems clear some were.

Nope. just because he shared a bed with them doesn't mean he raped them. It raises serious questions though as to what his motivations were for having children in his bed.

And then two of the children (in the doc last night) have said he molested them, and another 2 (or 3?) in the 90s made similar allegations against him.

Boggles

tigger123 wrote: »

I watched Part I last night and found it pretty disturbing tbh.

Of course you would why wouldn't you, you are human and maybe a parent or have children in your life.

It is designed to disturb you, shock you and make you feel a very certain way.

But that doesn't mean there is one iota of truth in it. This is not a new story, there is no new evidence there is absolutely no balance. Unashamedly so.

You do realize that, right?

tigger123

Boggles wrote: »

Of course you would why wouldn't you, you are human and maybe a parent or have children in your life.

It is designed to disturb you, shock you and make you feel a very certain way.

But that doesn't mean there is one iota of truth in it. This is not a new story, there is no new evidence there is absolutely no balance. Unashamedly so.

You do realize that, right?

That really is the crux of it. It's about whether you believe those that are making the allegations or not.

Safechuck and Wade Robson seem credible to me, and I believe their stories.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LolaJJ wrote: »

I've only seen the first part of this doc, last night, along with the rest of the world I'm sure.

Pretty indifferent to Jackson going in, always felt there is no smoke without fire and expected to be fully convinced he was guilty going in. Coming out of it, I was less convinced than I presumed I'd be - the hype surrounding this doc has been slightly insane.

I am disappointed they didn't include stories from now adult children who claim he didn't abuse them. I feel it lacked balance on that front but I understand the producers are telling the abuse story/allegations.

I don't feel confident assuming he is guilty, I'd like to know more about how well Safechuck and Robson became acquainted prior to filming and if there was an opportunity for them to compare notes, so to speak.

My one takeaway from it was how insanely naive and strange both mothers were. I appreciate he was a big-star but surely as mothers, they should have had some kind of instinct or feeling that this was inappropriate behavior. Part of me wondered if they turned a blind eye.

The thing is, whilst those accounts would be interesting to hear, they wouldn’t disprove anything.

I’d imagine even convicted child-abusers had contact with children they never did anything to. How child sexual abusers operate is identifying children whose parents aren’t vigilant enough. But those abusers probably were around plenty of children who ultimately couldn’t be fully separated from their parents.

Boggles

tigger123 wrote: »

Safechuck and Wade Robson seem credible to me, and I believe their stories.

Good for you.

But like I said they will more than likely have to retell those stories under oath maybe more than once.

Where soft lighting, unlimited takes and a sad backing track will be replaced with cross examination and scrutiny.

The 2 boys all ready owe the Jackson estate roughly 150k apparently, this could get very expensive indeed.

8-10

tigger123 wrote: »

and another 2 (or 3?) in the 90s made similar allegations against him.

Who was this?

tigger123

8-10 wrote: »

Who was this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson

ceadaoin.

This documentary was about these two guys telling their story. And to raise awareness of grooming and how abusers do this. The filmaker has been open about that. Why should it have to include people who say they weren't abused? Documentaries tend to focus on one subject from one perspective. It's normal

tigger123

8-10 wrote: »

Who was this?

This is a better link actually:

https://www.vulture.com/article/michael-jackson-abuse-allegations-timeline.html

Theboinkmaster

SoundsRight wrote: »

Watched pt.1 last night. Very uncomfortable viewing at times. I grew up after his peak years, so not as emotionally invested in him as others. He was famous in a way you can't get anymore, so I understand why people refuse to believe despite it being so blatantly obvious.

I've no doubt in my kind he was a predator and a pedophile. There's no other reasonable explanation for his behaviour.

So you arrived at that opinion after watching a 2 hour one sided documentary.

No doubt in your mind bar lack of a single piece of evidence, being acquitted of all charges and all accusers lacking credibility and desperately looking for $$$ money.

You have no doubt, really? :eek:

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The thing is, whilst those accounts would be interesting to hear, they wouldn’t disprove anything.

I’d imagine even convicted child-abusers had contact with children they never did anything to. How child sexual abusers operate is identifying children whose parents aren’t vigilant enough. But those abusers probably were around plenty of children who ultimately couldn’t be fully separated from their parents.

This. How many teacher priests over the decades who have been convicted of crimes like this were around loads of children where nothing happened?

A predator is someone who can identify the weakest ones.

The lion doesn't need to be quicker than the fastest zebra. The lion catches the slowest zebra.

ToBeFrank123

SusieBlue wrote: »

Talk about shifting the goalposts.

You said that him sharing a bed with preteen boys was akin to an adoptive mother sharing a bed with her children.
They are in no way similar and comparing them is extremely disingenuous.

By comparing it to a mother/children scenario you ARE condoning it, because you are implying its normal and acceptable behaviour and it isn't.
You are justifying it by saying the two are on the same wavelength.
They aren't and its actually very offensive to suggest otherwise.

I refuse to acknowledge the rest of your post as that wasn't the point I was arguing and had nothing to do with your original post.

Susie, I think I can narrow the arguments on both sides down to this:

Argument 1 : Jackson was an insanely childish, naïve guy who had no childhood and no childhood friends and therefore craved the company of children. Some parents copped on to this and instead of doing everything in their power to stop him sharing a bed with their kids saw an opportunity. Both sides exploited each other. From what I can gather, Jackson loved children, I don't think anyone doubts that, and was eager to have some of his own. Whether he loved them innocently or in a more sinister way is the question.

Argument 2 : He was a rampant abuser who used his influence and power to sleep with children with significant grooming involved. Vulnerable parents from a poor or middle class background felt powerless to intervene and their silence was bought with money and gifts.

People are by and large in one of these two camps.

Some people rely on hard evidence and at least a court case before being convinced.

A couple of life's failures who fell on financial difficulty and after the statute of limitations expired suddenly pop up to make accusations. Don't be surprised if some people have doubts.

All we need is solid inarguable proof, not speculation or stuff like "he shared a bed with children therefore he must have raped them" which is essentially what some people on here have been saying.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

https://mobile.twitter.com/joerogan/status/1103540852113080321?s=08

Theboinkmaster

tigger123 wrote: »

Safechuck and Wade Robson seem credible to me, and I believe their stories.

Why?! They're both proven liars with a lot of money involved.

tigger123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Susie, I think I can narrow the arguments on both sides down to this:

Argument 1 : Jackson was an insanely childish, naïve guy who had no childhood and no childhood friends and therefore craved the company of children. Some parents copped on to this and instead of doing everything in their power to stop him sharing a bed with their kids saw an opportunity. Both sides exploited each other. From what I can gather, Jackson loved children, I don't think anyone doubts that, and was eager to have some of his own. Whether he loved them innocently or in a more sinister way is the question.

Argument 2 : He was a rampant abuser who used his influence and power to sleep with children with significant grooming involved. Vulnerable parents from a poor or middle class background felt powerless to intervene and their silence was bought with money and gifts.

People are by and large in one of these two camps.

Some people rely on hard evidence and at least a court case before being convinced.

A couple of life's failures who fell on financial difficulty and after the statute of limitations expired suddenly pop up to make accusations. Don't be surprised if some people have doubts.

All we need is solid inarguable proof, not speculation or stuff like "he shared a bed with children therefore he must have raped them" which is essentially what some people on here have been saying.

What would constitute proof to you?

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This documentary was about these two guys telling their story. And to raise awareness of grooming and how abusers do this. The filmaker has been open about that. Why should it have to include people who say they weren't abused? Documentaries tend to focus on one subject from one perspective. It's normal

I saw the director ****ting on about how this is about those 2 boys and it's above abuse, not really about Michael Jackson.

Then why is it called Leaving Neverland?!

ToBeFrank123

I bet I could make anyone on this thread look and sound like a serial killer if I put together a one sided documentary. Connect them to locations of various crimes. And leave it long enough after the crimes, they will struggle to have a credible alibi. Bring in a couple of actors or people with an ax to grind and before you know it, everyone is convinced.

Its easy to make allegations. Its another to come up with solid proof.

Kimbot

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Your posting style? I was talking about the content of your posts.

As for your attempt to control what happens next in the thread :rolleyes:
Like I said, ignore and deflect.

MOD Deebles, dont post in this thread again!!

ceadaoin.

I understand why people might be able to write off Robson but can anyone explain why Safechuck isn't credible? He was a child when he testified for Michael at the first trial. He refused to do it in 2005. He kept his head down and hasnt sought to benefit from his association with Jackson over the years.

His story is harrowing and he is clearly deeply affected. If it was anyone else he was accusing, he wouldn't be called a liar. Some people just can't face the fact that Jackson was an abuser. Nothing will make them believe it, even if video evidence came up they would probably say it was fake etc etc.

ToBeFrank123

tigger123 wrote: »

What would constitute proof to you?

Proof admissible in court for a start and which can be questioned by the defence.

Or even witnesses subject to proper cross examination which clearly didn't happen in this documentary.

If I made allegations against you, would you like to have a right of reply?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This documentary was about these two guys telling their story. And to raise awareness of grooming and how abusers do this. The filmaker has been open about that. Why should it have to include people who say they weren't abused? Documentaries tend to focus on one subject from one perspective. It's normal

The Documentaries sole selling point is Michael Jackson.

There would be no thread otherwise or probably documentary, so it's fair disingenuous of the director to try shovel that absolute nonsense, it's completely insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I understand why people might be able to write off Robson but can anyone explain why Safechuck isn't credible? He was a child when he testified for Michael at the first trial. He refused to do it in 2005. He kept his head down and hasnt sought to benefit from his association with Jackson over the years.

There was no first trial, was there? He signed a witness statement I think for the potential civil suit.

Why did he refuse to do it in 2005, what was his reasons?

is_that_so

He seems to be considering more programmes.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

The Documentaries sole selling point is Michael Jackson.

There would be no thread otherwise or probably documentary, so it's fair disingenuous of the director to try shovel that absolute nonsense, it's completely insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Why do you think Safechucks account is "nonsense"? Break it down for me

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

There was no first trial, was there? He signed a witness statement I think for the potential civil suit.

Why did he refuse to do it in 2005, what was his reasons?

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

Hang on a second, by his own sworn deposition a few years ago he stated he didn't realize he had been molested or that it was "wrong" until at least 2010, this changed numerous times to later dates for "other" reasons.

So now he is saying he didn't defend him in 2005 because he was molested.

That's very interesting, thank you.

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

Or maybe convinced by Robson into joining him and taking advantage of the #metoo movement and make some money?

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The thing is, whilst those accounts would be interesting to hear, they wouldn’t disprove anything.

While they wouldn't disprove anything they would at least help establish the credibility and character of the accused as well as the credibility of the accuser, all vital in a court of law.

This is why a courtroom is the only proper place to decide guilt or innocence. The importance of a judge is he/she does not allow witnesses to make accusations or false statements without being called to account or cross examined. Its critical in proving guilt or innocence.

None of this happened in this documentary which is, its clear a good old fashioned character hatchet job with no right to reply. No wonder the judge threw out the case of one of them before trial.