Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I'm pointing the blame at all of them. Parents, Jacksons family/entourage and Jackson. And I've stated it previously.

You're arguing your defence of Jackson with the wrong person. I don't agree what he did was right, we disagree. I don't know why your so insistent on pushing it all away from him. But please leave me out of it. Cheers.

This isn't an unashamedly one side documentary.

I was putting forward a counter to a point you made on a discussion forum. It's how it kinda of works.

But no probs I won't respond to you again.

KikiLaRue

To believe MJ is innocent, you must believe:

• All his alleged victims and their parents are liars
• His sister Latoya was lying when she admitted he was inappropriate with children
• The maid who said she saw him in the shower was lying, and didn't simply change her story because of a $2m payout
• It's okay for a man in his 30s to sleep in bed with kids
• The payout to Jordan Chandler means nothing because the insurance company wanted to do it (why would the insurance company choose to pay out millions if they thought they could win the case and not pay?)

This is not a definitive list.

Any one of those things on their own would not convince me.

Together, it's too much to ignore. It's too many leaps of logic.

Could I prove in a court of law that MJ was a child molester? Probably not. That doesn't change my mind.

Boggles

Maddox Ripe Pail wrote: »

He had told her, it was the other guy who didn't tell his mother until after Jackson died.

According to his deposition under oath.

She asked him why he wasn't complying with Jackson and his lawyers request for him to testify at the trial. He claims under oath he said because he was "a bad man" or something to that effect, he wasn't quite sure.

But we know that conversion could never have existed because he wasn't asked to testify at the trial because it wasn't possible.

The first time he "knew" he was molested was when he saw Robson on TV in 2013 talking about the 100s of millions he thought he was going to get.

So his mother claiming she danced a mighty dance on news of Jacksons death in 2009 is complete and utter BS.

Gimme A Pound

Boggles wrote: »

This isn't an unashamedly one side documentary.

I was putting forward a counter to a point you made on a discussion forum. It's how it kinda of works.

But no probs I won't respond to you again.

They were nothing but polite to you.

Your hostility is weird.

Boggles

Maddox Ripe Pail wrote: »

They were nothing but polite to you.

Your hostility is weird.

In what way was I hostile? I complied with his request and he thanked my post.

Any way lad, the thread is neither about you or me.

As you were.

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

[*]The maid who said she saw him in the shower was lying, and didn't simply change her story because of a $2m payout

The maid was the the prosecutions witness in 2005.

She was found completely unreliable because she testified under oath to 2 completely different stories, something she repeated in 2016.

yourdeadwright

The world is in a bad state if people are convinced of something due to a one sided documentary ,

I'm not saying he is innocent or guilty but people to believe what they see in a one sided documentary and want to use that as "proof " is mental and dangerous for society ,

Something similar but on a smaller scale I seen recently was a boys face passed around facebook as someone who had assaulted someone's else son .
Anyone who seen it automatically thought what a thug and he saying he should be charged or even beat up himself,
Turns out the boy in question was on holidays out of the country with his parents when the attack happened,

These attacks on people's character without proper evidence and not done trough the correct channels cause way more harm than good in the long run ,

marklazarcovic

Savile was 84 at death,MJ 50 ,lot of years between them to accumulate victims. Just pointing this out, can't compare like for like,older the abuser the more he abused.

ToBeFrank123

KikiLaRue wrote: »

To believe MJ is innocent, you must believe:

• All his alleged victims and their parents are liars
• His sister Latoya was lying when she admitted he was inappropriate with children
• The maid who said she saw him in the shower was lying, and didn't simply change her story because of a $2m payout
• It's okay for a man in his 30s to sleep in bed with kids
• The payout to Jordan Chandler means nothing because the insurance company wanted to do it (why would the insurance company choose to pay out millions if they thought they could win the case and not pay?)

This is not a definitive list.

Any one of those things on their own would not convince me.

Together, it's too much to ignore. It's too many leaps of logic.

Could I prove in a court of law that MJ was a child molester? Probably not. That doesn't change my mind.

Most if not all of these points have been addressed throughout the thread and it would be only recycling old posts to go over them again.

However, unfortunately it does look like most if not all Jackson's accusers are liars engaged in some form of sophisticated shakedown. They tried the courts and couldn't get anywhere because judges and juries threw their cases out and on balance rightly so as their evidence lack credibility and consistency.
There's been allegations the maid was caught stealing, selling her story and so on.
its not ok for a man in his 30s to sleep in the same room as kids. Does it point to anything more sinister , for that we have the word of a couple of guys of dubious credibility against the word of a dead man who also may or not have been of dubious character. Unfortunately the entire thing is based around dubious characters and their word, which is why its so damn hard to make a definitive statement like Jackson was wholly innocent or in fact guilty.

As for the insurance company, who knows their motive. They possibly cut a deal - bring it to court and risk paying out 50 million, or keep it out of court and pay only 20 million. It should have been brought to court though. I think it set a precedent for others that there was easy money to be made from Jackson and his estate. People saw dollar signs. And if you make your accusation believable enough, or wait until memories fade and witnesses in particular struggle to remember, the chances of success increase. Unless you wait too long and the statute of limitations pass.

Gimme A Pound

Boggles wrote: »

In what way was I hostile? I complied with his request and he thanked my post.

Any way lad, the thread is neither about you or me.

As you were.

Yup, weirdly hostile AND passive aggressive.

Always find it strange when people resort to the above when they are convinced of their position. All they need to do is lay out their position - that should be sufficient. When they are so sure of their position and can support it robustly, it doesn't make sense that they would resort to... being an arsehole really.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She's clearly struggling with her timelines and memory if she made that assertion. A half competent lawyer would pull her up on this instantly and her credibility as a witness in a court case would immediately be shot to pieces.

You can never underestimate the value of cross examination in uncovering provable lies. Lawyers are the world leading experts at cross examination and interrogation. If someone is lying they will uncover it in no time.

You wouldn't even need a lawyer. Any half decent journalist / documentarian who isn't a tabloid hack trying to make a name for himself should have the common professional decency to fact check his own work. Even if he is going to make it unashamedly one sided.

Reed (director) has said on the record numerous times he believes every facet of their story, he knows this because he vehemently fact checked every part of it.

He is no better than a con man.

He looked like he was about to shít himself when Piers Morgan started asking him a couple of simple questions, because up until that point he was able to do his media tour completely unchallenged.

Morgan is a cretin, but he is also a tabloid hack who knows another when he sees it.

Boggles

Maddox Ripe Pail wrote: »

Yup, weirdly hostile AND passive aggressive.

Always find it strange when people resort to the above when they are convinced of their position. All they need to do is lay out their position - that should be sufficient. When they are so sure of their position and can support it robustly, it doesn't make sense that they would resort to... being an arsehole really.

I'd appreciate if you stop replying to me please.

Thanks.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As for the insurance company, who knows their motive. They possibly cut a deal - bring it to court and risk paying out 50 million, or keep it out of court and pay only 20 million. It should have been brought to court though. I think it set a precedent for others that there was easy money to be made from Jackson and his estate. People saw dollar signs. And if you make your accusation believable enough, or wait until memories fade and witnesses in particular struggle to remember, the chances of success increase. Unless you wait too long and the statute of limitations pass.

Jackson was inline to lose 100+ million if he didn't finish the second leg of the tour, not to mention multiple potential law suits for not fulfilling his contractual obligations. He stated he wanted to fight it, but was over ruled.

In 2003-2005 he chose to go down the criminal route, because at the time he had no contractual obligations.

As we saw from that when it was tested in the court, the whole family that made the allegations should have been leaving in shackles.

marklazarcovic

https://youtu.be/oo4u_P_R0p4

There is no way this is a forced statement, completely damming, I'd say she got one of those cheques herself to recant it.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson was inline to lose 100+ million if he didn't finish the second leg of the tour, not to mention multiple potential law suits for not fulfilling his contractual obligations. He stated he wanted to fight it, but was over ruled.

In 2003-2005 he chose to go down the criminal route, because at the time he had no contractual obligations.

As we saw from that when it was tested in the court, the whole family that made the allegations should have been leaving in shackles.

The insurance company would probably have to cover this 100 million if they were insuring him and the tour. So 20 million was better for them to part with. It was a foolish move in hindsight and it flagged that Jackson could be sued without even going to court. Make the accusations believable enough and the insurance company would pay up.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The insurance company would probably have to cover this 100 million if they were insuring him and the tour. So 20 million was better for them to part with. It was a foolish move in hindsight and it flagged that Jackson could be sued without even going to court. Make the accusations believable enough and the insurance company would pay up.

Can you imagine the carnage of putting Evan Chandler on the stand, I guy that drugged his own son and subsequently tried to murder him with a dumbbell and a can of mace. He was a complete psychopath.

"Is it true Mr. Chandler you were seeking 20 million off Michael Jackson to make Men in Tights II?". :pac::pac::pac:

It would have made the 2005 trial look credible.

KikiLaRue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most if not all of these points have been addressed throughout the thread and it would be only recycling old posts to go over them again.

However, unfortunately it does look like most if not all Jackson's accusers are liars engaged in some form of sophisticated shakedown. They tried the courts and couldn't get anywhere because judges and juries threw their cases out and on balance rightly so as their evidence lack credibility and consistency.
There's been allegations the maid was caught stealing, selling her story and so on.
its not ok for a man in his 30s to sleep in the same room as kids. Does it point to anything more sinister , for that we have the word of a couple of guys of dubious credibility against the word of a dead man who also may or not have been of dubious character. Unfortunately the entire thing is based around dubious characters and their word, which is why its so damn hard to make a definitive statement like Jackson was wholly innocent or in fact guilty.

As for the insurance company, who knows their motive. They possibly cut a deal - bring it to court and risk paying out 50 million, or keep it out of court and pay only 20 million. It should have been brought to court though. I think it set a precedent for others that there was easy money to be made from Jackson and his estate. People saw dollar signs. And if you make your accusation believable enough, or wait until memories fade and witnesses in particular struggle to remember, the chances of success increase. Unless you wait too long and the statute of limitations pass.

They haven’t been addressed to an adequately convincing degree for me.

I don’t need anyone to convince me that an adult man sleeping in bed with children is wrong. It just is. It goes against ever fibre of my being. It goes against logic to suggest it was innocent.

You got the part about the insurance company right though. They settled for $20m rather than risk paying $50m... which means they obviously found Chandler to be credible.

paleoperson

There's no such person named "Micky Jackson" you could be talking about here.

If you're trying to "Irishize" the name that's a massive failure because Micky, Mick, Mike, Michael, Micheail (Irish) and maybe Mikey are all held as completely different names considering there are so many people with a "Michael" type of name. There's about five people with the base name of "Michael Murphy" in the locality here, two of them live almost next door. You tell them apart by how you say their first name. You'd get very queer looks if you tried to name them different.

hetuzozaho

Apologies if posted already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWjKDih1G8

Its a discussion with the two guys and the director and an audience of abuse survivors.

The difficulty people have in coming forward and opening up about the abuse is awful. Living for years with it must be so difficult. Sometimes with a sense of guilt. Shocking.

Boggles

paleoperson wrote: »

There's no such person named "Micky Jackson" you could be talking about here.

If you're trying to "Irishize" the name that's a massive failure because Micky, Mick, Mike, Michael, Micheail (Irish) and maybe Mikey are all held as completely different names considering there are so many people with a "Michael" type of name. There's about five people with the base name of "Michael Murphy" in the locality here, two of them live almost next door. You tell them apart by how you say their first name. You'd get very queer looks if you tried to name them different.

Well, that clears that up.

tylercheribini

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Apologies if posted already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWjKDih1G8

Its a discussion with the two guys and the director and an audience of abuse survivors.

The difficulty people have in coming forward and opening up about the abuse is awful. Living for years with it must be so difficult. Sometimes with a sense of guilt. Shocking.

And people still think its all an elaborately plotted conspiracy against their deity.

Beechwoodspark

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Savile was 84 at death,MJ 50 ,lot of years between them to accumulate victims. Just pointing this out, can't compare like for like,older the abuser the more he abused.

I personally believe he groomed many many victims from around 1978 up until his death from a drug overdose in 2009

I believe this from having read two biographies of him and many articles.

For anyone saying post evidence etc. No. I have a full time job and busy enough as it is. and cannot be your personal researchers.

Instead I ask you to take the time to do your own research. Plenty of reputable stuff online and of course by all means use your own judgement. Come to your own conclusions.

I am delighted that he has been exposed and hopefully his music will never be played publicly again. The next step is that the Jackson family are ruined due to enabling his child abuse for decades.

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I believe this from having read two biographies.

I know you are extremely busy and can't do any research, but could you name the 2 books at least please?

smartyfarts

he's definitely a big nonce. there's no two ways about it. he was a predator and used his status and power to wield abuse over loads of kids.

his music is still catchy, I love that "Do you remember the time" video & song with eddie murphy and imam.

ToBeFrank123

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You got the part about the insurance company right though. They settled for $20m rather than risk paying $50m... which means they obviously found Chandler to be credible.

Boggles has addressed this better than me. If the tour was cancelled, they'd be at risk for 100 million. They decided to just pay the 20 million. That way they saved themselves 80 million. It was wrong of them to do that, but then again that's the way insurance companies work. They try to make a profit surprisingly enough!

paleoperson

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I personally believe he groomed many many victims from around 1978 up until his death from a drug overdose in 2009

I believe this from having read two biographies of him and many articles.

For anyone saying post evidence etc. No. I have a full time job and busy enough as it is. and cannot be your personal researchers.

Instead I ask you to take the time to do your own research. Plenty of reputable stuff online and of course by all means use your own judgement. Come to your own conclusions.

I am delighted that he has been exposed and hopefully his music will never be played publicly again. The next step is that the Jackson family are ruined due to enabling his child abuse for decades.

Well that escalated quickly. I'm assuming you wrote the early part of the post with the airs of being fair and respectful through gritted teeth, then all of a sudden you let your true feelings out.

This is something I've noticed about these "pedophile hunters" types. It's almost like their need for revenge is first, and it's about how bloodthirsty they are, all in the name of "protecting the children". First being as violent as possible against the perpetrators. But since Jackson is dead the bloodlust turns to having none of his music played anymore and on the family for "enabling" it. These people are never happy and imo their opinions on whether it occurred or not are not worth taking seriously because they're too emotional and over the top.

hetuzozaho

tylercheribini wrote: »

And people still think its all an elaborately plotted conspiracy against their deity.

Well it may be. Would be great news.

Beechwoodspark

paleoperson wrote: »

Well that escalated quickly. I'm assuming you wrote the early part of the post with the airs of being fair and respectful through gritted teeth, then all of a sudden you let your true feelings out.

This is something I've noticed about these "pedophile hunters" types. It's almost like their need for revenge is first, and it's about how bloodthirsty they are, all in the name of "protecting the children". First being as violent as possible against the perpetrators. But since Jackson is dead the bloodlust turns to having none of his music played anymore and on the family for "enabling" it. These people are never happy and imo their opinions on whether it occurred or not are not worth taking seriously because they're too emotional and over the top.

I respectfully ask you to go away do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

hetuzozaho

smartyfarts wrote: »

his music is still catchy, I love that "Do you remember the time" video & song with eddie murphy and imam.

So good in my opinion. I was listening to a lot of it over the weekend, and watching the videos on YouTube, brings back a lot of great memories.

I hadn't listened in years, was a big fan as a kid, still have the Bad record from then. Good Times!

Did he work with a lot writers and musicians, always find it strange when a musician doesn't play instruments(from what I see on wiki album info) but is credited for all the writing.

ToBeFrank123

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I respectfully ask you to go away do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

That's actually good advice to everyone and not to take the documentary on face value. They should investigate a bit further and then decide.