Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123

Necro wrote: »

I think that's the thing that's most surprising to me about this thread. I tend to agree that Robson in particular isn't particularly credible due to his past actions, but realistically the focus on the recent documentary and flagrant refusal to accept actual factual documented evidence that points to Jackson being - at best a very depraved individual - and at worst a monster along the lines of Saville...

It's really bizarre behaviour.

He's as bad as Saville? That must mean there's hundreds of victims out there queuing up to get their story heard? So where the hell are they? So far we've had a few who you yourself say lack credibility in other words can't be believed.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Was that the case that was dismissed because the statute of limitations had passed? If so, the judge made no ruling in that case.

I have to agree with those who say you are not coming across as impartial as you claim.

Nope. I choose not to believe some of the more outlandish statements against Jackson such as he was as bad as Saville when there simply isn't the volume of accusers to back this up.

It seems to be open season against Jackson where anything and everything can be said about him and the credibility of those saying it is never questioned.

Which is why these 2 accusers would be laughed out of court. No cross examination equals a show trial worthy of the old soviet union.

I'm in defence of justice regardless who is accused. This basic concept unfortunately goes right over the head of a lot of people.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

is_that_so wrote: »

Does a poster's understanding of all of this really depend on their having sat through 4 hours of a one-sided programme?

Well, hopefully that poster hasn’t offered criticism of the documentary. Because, yes, to criticise something, you absolutely need to have watched it.

ToBeFrank123

Regarding NDAs Weinstein and Phillip Greene signed numerous ones. The accusers have since broken them and spoke publicly. Theres plenty of precedent for those subject to NDAs speaking out. There is never a better time for people to come forward or break NDAs.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Nope. I choose not to believe more of the more outlandish statements against Jackson such as he was as bad as Saville when there simply isn't the volume of accusers to back this up.

It seems to be open season against Jackson where anything and everything can be said about him and the credibility of those saying it is never questioned.

Which is why these 2 accusers would be laughed out of court. No cross examination equals a show trial worthy of the old soviet union.

I'm in defence of justice regardless who is accused. This basic concept unfortunately goes right over the head of a lot of people.

Oh. Why does there need to be an army of accusers? I feel sorry for any victim of child sexual abuse if that’s the reason they’re not believed.

But, anyway, the case was dismissed because the statute of limitations had passed, no?

We don’t really know that they would be laughed out of court. Both accusers have been denigrated but then Robson is the one honed in on. Unfortunately for MJ supporters, there doesn’t appear to be much dirt on Safechuck.

ToBeFrank123

Ok here goes.

Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/ay42cx/a_condensed_version_of_the_major_credibility/

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Unfortunately for MJ supporters, there doesn’t appear to be much dirt on Safechuck.

Safechuck didn't get as much of a chance to purger himself the way Robson did.

That's because his lawsuits were tossed out more or less immediately.

But the deposition he was allowed give was pretty nonsensical.

Including claims he was molested by Jackson at events that weren't even on and late in the trial he claimed he was threatened to testify by Jackson and his lawyers, all though the trial at that stage had basically collapsed and the Judge was not allowing new witnesses. :pac:

Really really simple errors (lies) that could have easily been corrected by a quick glance at wikipedia.

According to his deposition (under oath) his one greatest fear, the one thing that gave him "panic attacks" was anyone finding out about his "relationship" with Jackson, that's until he saw Wade talking on TV about the 100s of millions he was inline to get, well like a rat up a the drain pipe he was gone to the lawyers and any fear he claimed to have with it.

ToBeFrank123

Does anyone agree that if Robson or Safechuck told a single proveable lie in the documentary their credibility is seriously compromised?

Also does anyone agree that an accusation without cross examination would be worthless in a court of law?

ToBeFrank123

Safechuck was not asked to testify in the 2005 case because he was not considered relevant to the case by the judge. So if he said he was asked and refused to testify thats a proveable lie.

BorneTobyWilde

Funny that in the hours and hours of phone calls between Michael and these two guys, some of which was in documentary that not one thing sexual was said by Michael, not a single thing could they find, and considering Michael was talking one on one with these guys for hours on end you would imagine something would be caught on tape, but no, not a single sexual reference in all the hours and hours of calls.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Does anyone agree that if Robson or Safechuck told a single proveable lie in the documentary their credibility is seriously compromised?

Also does anyone agree that an accusation without cross examination would be worthless in a court of law?

It's the reason they haven't made a criminal complaint, Tom Sneddon is dead, one would assume the new DA or prosecution office in California are not batshít mental so the 2 boys would be run out there.

It's the very reason the director could not put one counter point in the "documentary", not even one, the whole charade would have fallen over.

PokeHerKing

BorneTobyWilde wrote:

Funny that in the hours and hours of phone calls between Michael and these two guys, some of which was in documentary that not one thing sexual was said by Michael, not a single thing could they find, and considering Michael was talking one on one with these guys for hours on end you would imagine something would be caught on tape, but no, not a single sexual reference in all the hours and hours of calls.

Who was recording their phone calls?

ToBeFrank123

Regards superfans defending Jackson, a lot of fans including some on here think he's guilty. A lot of people who are not fans think he's innocent. Its got nothing to do with fans or not. Its about getting at the truth.

joe40

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny that in the hours and hours of phone calls between Michael and these two guys, some of which was in documentary that not one thing sexual was said by Michael, not a single thing could they find, and considering Michael was talking one on one with these guys for hours on end you would imagine something would be caught on tape, but no, not a single sexual reference in all the hours and hours of calls.

Well thats it sorted then so. Nothing could have happened.
He slept with kids, he persuaded them to sleep in his bed along with him.
Something like if you love me you will sleep in the same bed. It is on the Bashir documentary.
How can some people refuse to see how utterly wrong and twisted that was, not a bit odd or eccentric.
That in itself was abusive. Some will still defend him and refuse to accept how wrong and damaging that behaviour was.
A court does not prove innocence it just means there was not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Jackson was as shady as hell

wobatkicker23

joe40 wrote: »

Well thats it sorted then so. Nothing could have happened.
He slept with kids, he persuaded them to sleep in his bed along with him.
Something like if you love me you will sleep in the same bed. It is on the Bashir documentary.
How can some people refuse to see how utterly wrong and twisted that was, not a bit odd or eccentric.
That in itself was abusive.

That’s false.

Boggles

joe40 wrote: »

A court does not prove innocence it just means there was not enough evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Just on this, Jacksons lawyer in the 2005 trial took the unprecedented step of telling the jurors that he would prove Jackson was innocent, not that Jackson was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, apparently he never used the term.

As we found out afterwards the jurors that were interviewed agreed with him.

Apart from Ray.

Quote from a reporter with the Rolling Stones at the time who apparently did not like Jackson whatsoever, sums up exactly what that trial was IMO.

Virtually every piece of [Sneddon’s] case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles

brooke 2

Necro wrote: »

It's actually baffling to me that there are a few defenders of Jackson here when on another thread R. Kelly is equally being called a monster (and rightfully so) despite having no criminal convictions yet.

Sometimes the law, particularly for the rich and powerful in America provides ways out of criminal proceedings. Payoffs, poor policing, mishandling of evidence.

There won't be any quantifiable proof ever at this point that Jackson was a paedo, as he's dead.

But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - and acts like a duck... that's enough for me tbh.

Exactly! If it walks like a duck.........:mad:

Have always thought it bizarre that parents would bring their young children to see an artist who did pelvic thrusts and grabbed his crotch..a friend of mine brought her six year old son to see Michael Jackson in Cork....my son was the same age and I could never imagine bringing him to see MJ.....Wade Robson was the same age as our boys

is_that_so

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, hopefully that poster hasn’t offered criticism of the documentary. Because, yes, to criticise something, you absolutely need to have watched it.

Generally one doesn't need to watch much of a lot of TV to know how bad some of it is. Indeed for some TV, trailers alone will suffice for the criticism. Director himself has acknowledged it was one-sided. The flaw in that is pretty obvious regardless of how well it is allegedly done.

RederthanRed

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, hopefully that poster hasn’t offered criticism of the documentary. Because, yes, to criticise something, you absolutely need to have watched it.

Well I watched it and it was absolutely entirely one dimensional. Others have commented since about being in the same position and how nothing inappropriate happened. They weren't interviewed.
It's a very poor documentary for it's lack of investigating of the others who stayed there without any complaint or any looking into what else these accusers have said and done. Lots have come to light since it aired.
There was no balance at all to this.
If a doc is to be taken seriously it should have done these things but it knew it could get away with all that and still be taken seriously mainly because of the previous allegations and the fact he isn't here to respond to them.
There was a post by Sligeach on here where there was videos of the accusers that didn't look like you'd expect (to put it mildly)

Anyhow, I heard all the talk and sat down to watch it expecting the doc to offer far more than it did.

He was cleared after massive FBI investigations before. I don't see enough in this doc to have everyone saying he's guilty now.

But that's just me. I watched the previous one by Bashir too and again I came away from it thinking he had been hard done by, the attacking questions saved til the end in that one.

I don't know if any of the allegations are true or not. None of the people calling for blood here know for sure if they're true or not either.
So we can only form opinions.

My opinion is that he was a very disturbed person and tried to live a childhood he was robbed of in a manner that looks creepy and inappropriate to all of us but I'd doubt he harmed any kid.
I'll be in the minority on this but all those condemning him can't be sure either.

Mr.Wemmick

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny that in the hours and hours of phone calls between Michael and these two guys, some of which was in documentary that not one thing sexual was said by Michael, not a single thing could they find, and considering Michael was talking one on one with these guys for hours on end you would imagine something would be caught on tape, but no, not a single sexual reference in all the hours and hours of calls.

I don't doubt he was a nice friendly guy, kind, loving, sweet and he loved these kids, but in the end of the day he was a man and he wanted more from them, than they him. They were just starstruck little kids, talking to their idol. He was a man and no matter the level of the their relationship, it was an unequal one and very inappropriate.

He had no business being friends with little children. He was a grown man.

brooke 2

martingriff wrote: »

Seems too planted for me going from okay to pensive in thought after a comment to been okay to then tears. There have been plenty of people who have cried on TV in relation to stuff and then turned out yes they lied

The tears of Chantal, Wade's sister, seemed genuine to me. She originally defended MJ, only to be horrified when her brother told her what MJ had done to him.

brooke 2

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Whether people think he's guilty or not , I honestly hope that if anyone ever opens up to you , as an adult , and confides that they were abused as a child , that they're treated with compassion and empathy .

Not disbelief .

+100

brooke 2

Chance Juicy Quota wrote: »

They have effectively said that they're not banning Jackson's music; they just don't plan on playing it anymore.

Good.

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

Just on this, Jacksons lawyer in the 2005 trial took the unprecedented step of telling the jurors that he would prove Jackson was innocent

Surely impossible though? Unless he has footage of all the time spent behind the bedroom door(s) with all the children involved. Even writing that sentence... haha

Boggles

brooke 2 wrote: »

The tears of Chantal, Wade's sister, seemed genuine to me. She originally defended MJ, only to be horrified when her brother told her what MJ had done to him.

But why wouldn't she be genuine.

If the "master of deception" tells you something you are probably going to believe it right, especially if he is your brother?

I don't blame her at all, if the lads are lying she is a victim too, as Wades mother said the boy could win a oscar for lying.

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Surely impossible though? Unless he has footage of all the time spent behind the bedroom door(s) with all the children involved. Even writing that sentence... haha

2005 trial he was eluding to.

1 child involved.

ofcork

Surprised to read james safechuck was in cork in 88 with mj and sam smyth and eamonn Dunphy got a porter to put a note under their hotel room door as they felt something was off.

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

2005 trial he was eluding to.

1 child involved.

Apologies.

Surely impossible though?

Unless he has footage of all the time spent behind the bedroom door with the child involved.

is_that_so

brooke 2 wrote: »

The tears of Chantal, Wade's sister, seemed genuine to me. She originally defended MJ, only to be horrified when her brother told her what MJ had done to him.

You ever see a politician caught up in a scandal, begging for forgiveness with his family by side? Very genuine too.

ceadaoin.

RederthanRed wrote: »

My opinion is that he was a very disturbed person and tried to live a childhood he was robbed of in a manner that looks creepy and inappropriate to all of us but I'd doubt he harmed any kid.
I'll be in the minority on this but all those condemning him can't be sure either.

Even if no one accused him of sexual abuse, using children as props to live out his selfish ideas of childhood is not ok. Treating them as his best friend and center of his world, lavishing them with attention and gifts, only to withdraw that affection and attention and move on to someone else when they get too old to help him live out his fantasies is still abusive and damaging for the children. He obviously only cared about himself and had little regards towards the feelings of his friends.