Micky Jackson in trouble again

innuendo141

is_that_so wrote: »

It depends where you read it. His irritation was more at having to pay for songs he wrote or co-wrote and having no control over how they were used. Himself and Lennon tried to buy them back in 1969 but didn't have enough money.

Ono said that her and Maca couldn't come to an agreement. The plan WAS to split it. In the end, she was glad Jackson went for it.

Don't think she ever gave a comment about him letting LA Gear use Revolution for an ad though...

His cover of Come Together is class though.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Definitely not. But I think people are using more than just his manipulation techniques to arrive at the paedophile thing. You know this.

Unfortunately its difficult to tell how far the abuse went if it happened. The more I look at Safechuck and Robson and read about them the more holes I see in their story to the point I believe its an attempt at a financial shakedown that didn't get far in the courts. They had plenty of time to bring this all to court before. And I don't buy their excuses for not doing it, ie they didn't think sexual abuse was wrong until they were 30 years of age which is horse manure.

The lie from Safechuck that he refused to testify in 2005 because Jackson was a bad man is a huge lie. Then he compounds it by saying he wasn't sure he was abused until 2011. Robsons mother didn't know her son was abused until 2011 but danced a jig when Jackson died in 2009. Why would she be so happy to see the death of a guy that treated them like royalty? These are the kinds of giant holes in their stories that need further checking. I don't see how anyone can take these guys seriously.
I'm all for genuine victims of abuse coming forward, but when they come forward with more holes in their story than swiss cheese then there's something wrong. I'm expecting a response from some like yeh but abuse survivors take years to process stuff and so on. That is true but genuine victims don't change their stories every so often or tell lies when it suits.

Dontfadeaway

What about Macauley Culkin, are we really believing that he was hanging around with Michael all that time and in his bed but he was the lucky one and nothing happened? Culkin says nothing happened and said that all they did was play games and watch movies, which is what James and Wade said before they changed their story.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Unfortunately its difficult to tell how far the abuse went if it happened.

Of course it is without being in the bedroom with them. Which is pretty much the way these things go. And a lot of abuse victims face this hurdle.

The Oprah thing has an audience of 200 survivors, who seem to empathise and agree with the feelings of the two from the documentary. About not being able to tell etc. Etc.

Everyone will have different views etc. But it's a bit disingenuous to act like, oh lots of people are manipulative are they paedophiles too? People's views are not coming from nowhere. It's not that outlandish for someone to think he was a paedophile.

Just to add, I am not accusing him of being a paedophile so don't want a load wall of text telling me why he is not. And why those guys are liars etc. You don't know. I don't know. Personally I hope they are lieing and it comes out.

ToBeFrank123

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

What about Macauley Culkin, are we really believing that he was hanging around with Michael all that time and in his bed but he was the lucky one and nothing happened? Culkin says nothing happened and said that all they did was play games and watch movies, which is what James and Wade said before they changed their story.

Macauley Culkin I would treat as a credible witness. No evidence of him perjuring himself. No evidence of him being caught out telling lies in relation to Jackson. No evidence of him mounting a shakedown. If he wanted to come forward to claim something he could have. He doesn't need the money or the payoff.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Of course it is without being in the bedroom with them. Which is pretty much the way these things go. And a lot of abuse victims face this hurdle.

The Oprah thing has an audience of 200 survivors, who seem to empathise and agree with the feelings of the two from the documentary. About not being able to tell etc. Etc.

Everyone will have different views etc. But it's a bit disingenuous to act like, oh lots of people are manipulative are they paedophiles too? People's views are not coming from nowhere. It's not that outlandish for someone to think he was a paedophile.

Just to add, I am not accusing him of being a paedophile so don't want a load wall of text telling me why he is not. And why those guys are liars etc. You don't know. I don't know. Personally I hope they are lieing and it comes out.

"Nick" in the UK got through years of police investigations and so on before he was found to be a fraud. It shows that you can actually make things up and get away with it.

It is possible but eventually you get caught out with lies, particularly if it reaches a court trial where your credibility comes under intense scrutiny.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

"Nick" in the UK got through years of police investigations and so on before he was found to be a fraud. It shows that you can actually make things up and get away with it.

It is possible but eventually you get caught out with lies, particularly if it reaches a court trial where your credibility comes under intense scrutiny.

Think you've replied to the wrong person?

Conall Cernach

Maybe Culkin was abused too but sees that there is nothing to gain for him by coming out now and admitting it when he would be lambasted for not coming forward years ago. Or maybe Jackson didn't abuse him as he was high profile and if Macauley Culkin claimed to have been abused it would have been taken more seriously. Either way just because Macauley Culkin claims not to have been abused does not mean that other boys were not abused.

Flippyfloppy

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Maybe Culkin was abused too but sees that there is nothing to gain for him by coming out now and admitting it when he would be lambasted for not coming forward years ago. Or maybe Jackson didn't abuse him as he was high profile and if Macauley Culkin claimed to have been abused it would have been taken more seriously. Either way just because Macauley Culkin claims not to have been abused does not mean that other boys were not abused.

Culkin has said he wasn’t abused but two separate parties both claimed they witnessed him being abused while he played video games. Those parties had nothing to gain by those accusations.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

The whole "they are just out for the money" argument holds no water, I can think of easier ways of earning a living than participating in a gruelling four hour documentary publicly detailing that I sucked off a man etc..

And having millions upon millions of people hate you who will try to discredit you any way they can. Who would willingly sign up for that stress? I’ve heard people say that the two accusers’ careers are in the toilet. But I can’t find anything about Safechuck in that regard. I think he isn’t in the entertainment industry any more and just lives a low-key life. Nobody has lived a perfect life. I bet if any of us accused Jackson of something, somebody would find something to try and discredit us with.

Hrududu

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Robsons mother didn't know her son was abused until 2011 but danced a jig when Jackson died in 2009

That was Safechucks mother.

Safechuck asked her not to testify in 2005 as Jackson was "a bad man" she didn't ask for details but got the drift and so didn't testify. Then in 2009 when he died she said she danced the jig.

Boggles

Hrududu wrote: »

That was Safechucks mother.

Safechuck asked her not to testify in 2005 as Jackson was "a bad man" she didn't ask for details but got the drift and so didn't testify. Then in 2009 when he died she said she danced the jig.

Couldn't have happened, explained multiple times on this thread all ready.

innuendo141

Hrududu wrote: »

That was Safechucks mother.

Safechuck asked her not to testify in 2005 as Jackson was "a bad man" she didn't ask for details but got the drift and so didn't testify. Then in 2009 when he died she said she danced the jig.

His first story said that he did not realise what had taken place was abuse until he saw Wade Robson on TV in 2013 talking about his abuse. This is according to his lawsuit.

Flippyfloppy

It’s uncanny that the Jackson camp claim that the accusers are in it for the money. If anyone knows anything about being ‘in it for the money’ the jacksons do. MJs money is their bread and butter.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Couldn't have happened, explained multiple times on this thread all ready.

I didn't get the impression that he asked her not to testify. He asked her to stop "defending" him. I presumed he meant to other people, not in court

is_that_so

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

It’s uncanny that the Jackson camp claim that the accusers are in it for the money. If anyone knows anything about being ‘in it for the money’ the jacksons do. MJs money is their bread and butter.

Thee are no camps. There are different opinions but this type of simplistic labelling helps people dismiss arguments they dislike.

innuendo141

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I didn't get the impression that he asked her not to testify. He asked her to stop "defending" him. I presumed he meant to other people, not in court

To be fair, its not 100% clear in the documentary, and the information given per the earlier claims really throws the whole thing altogether. I think he meant when they were asked to defend him in 05, which there are question marks over too

Beechwoodspark

Culkin was the biggest child star in the world at the time

MJ being the devious and intelligent man that he was, knew Culkin was off limits and also it would bolster his image if culkin said nothing ever happened.

MJ was NOT some idiot man child. He was extremely devious and clever.

ceadaoin.

innuendo141 wrote: »

To be fair, its not 100% clear in the documentary, and the information given per the earlier claims really throws the whole thing altogether. I think he meant when they were asked to defend him in 05, which there are question marks over too

He claims he received a call from Jackson asking him to defend him once again. He said no. Can anyone disprove that this happened? His mother and father were on at him to help his friend and he told them to stop defending him because he wasn't a good man. His mother understood he was saying that he was abused but didn't push it because he made it clear that he didn't want to discuss it. His mother was aware since that point that something sexual had happened between him and Jackson. Therefore when he died in 2009 she was aware of it so she may very well have been happy

100% clear to me. Some of the people in here who are rubbishing every single aspect of the documentary and what Robson and Safechuck say haven't even watched it.

innuendo141

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He claims he received a call from Jackson asking him to defend him once again. He said no. His mother and father were on at him to help his friend and he told them to stop defending him because he wasn't a good man. His mother understood he was saying that he was abused but didn't push it because he made it clear that he didn't want to discuss it. His mother was aware since that point that something sexual had happened between him and Jackson. Therefore when he died in 2009 she was aware of it so she may very well have been happy

100% clear to me. Some of the people in here rubbishing every aspect of the documentary haven't even watched it.

Jeeny, relax I wasnt disagreeing with you, only saying what I had thought he meant, considering I had known previously he stated he did not realise he had been abused until 2013. No need to jump down my throat, jesus.

hetuzozaho

Lots of media /podcasts picking up on it now. Will be interesting if anything else comes out of the next short while. Feel like media people I've listened to are leaning toward the two guys.

One I just listened to there now:

"Sean Rameswaram speaks with the film's director and a lawyer representing the estate of Michael Jackson."

https://pca.st/I91i

Hannibal_Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Culkin was the biggest child star in the world at the time

MJ being the devious and intelligent man that he was, knew Culkin was off limits and also it would bolster his image if culkin said nothing ever happened.

MJ was NOT some idiot man child. He was extremely devious and clever.

Do you think MJs staff lied at the trial then?

ceadaoin.

Safechuck never said that he didn't realise he was abused. He didn't realise the impact it had on him and his mental health until he started therapy. For a long while he thought it was his idea and that he enjoyed it because he was in love with Michael Jackson. It's consistent with how victims of grooming and sexual abuse often feel

81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with [REDACTED]. He is going to therapy one a week. Plaintiff tries to appear that he has “it together”, but struggles on a daily basis with his panic, depression and anxiety. He did not realize how “sick” it was that DECEDENT did the things he did to him as a child until he began therapy. Until he had his own children and realized how innocent they were and what “blank slates” they were, he did not appreciate that when you are made to think as a child that something was “your idea” it did not seem as bad as it actually was, as in the case of his abuse by DECEDENT

Flippyfloppy

is_that_so wrote: »

Thee are no camps. There are different opinions but this type of simplistic labelling helps people dismiss arguments they dislike.

The camp I am referring to is the Jackson family. If you want reread my original post replacing the word camp with family, it might ease your despair on the issue.

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

tylercheribini wrote: »

The whole "they are just out for the money" argument holds no water, I can think of easier ways of earning a living than participating in a gruelling four hour documentary publicly detailing that I sucked off a man etc..

And having millions upon millions of people hate you who will try to discredit you any way they can. Who would willingly sign up for that stress? I’ve heard people say that the two accusers’ careers are in the toilet. But I can’t find anything about Safechuck in that regard. I think he isn’t in the entertainment industry any more and just lives a low-key life. Nobody has lived a perfect life. I bet if any of us accused Jackson of something, somebody would find something to try and discredit us with.

Like any institution that is desperate to protect itself at all costs,smear and discredit the whistle-blower, something we are all too familar with in this country.

fin12

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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

And what research have you posted except talk sh*te about his music been banned. So pathetic.

innuendo141

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Safechuck never said that he didn't realise he was abused. He didn't realise the impact it had on him and his mental health until he started therapy. For a long while he thought it was his idea and that he enjoyed it because he was in love with Michael Jackson. It's consistent with how victims of grooming and sexual abuse often feel

Check out @dandelts’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/dandelts/status/1105039839848587264?s=09

This seems to suggest to me that he is saying exactly what Robson is- that he was aware of what went on the entire time, but did not realise that it was sexual abuse. This is in line with what Robson says. Again thats how Im readin it, no need to have a go, Im just saying.

Beechwoodspark

fin12 wrote: »

And what research have you posted except talk sh*te about his music been banned. So pathetic.

Told you. I’m too busy to be anyone’s personal researcher. Look it up yourself and come to your own conclusions

And his music has been effectively banned on RTÉ ! Great news.

I bet his dwindling number of hardcore fans will probably bombard RTÉ switchboard to play tripe such as “You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk) or “Earth song”

Pathetic indeed

ceadaoin.

innuendo141 wrote: »

Check out @dandelts’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/dandelts/status/1105039839848587264?s=09

This seems to suggest to me that he is saying exactly what Robson is- that he was aware of what went on the entire time, but did not realise that it was sexual abuse. This is in line with what Robson says. Again thats how Im readin it, no need to have a go, Im just saying.

I don't know why you keep saying I'm "jumping down your throat" or "having a go" lol. It says here in the lawsuit details and in the documentary that he made his mother aware that something had happened between them, years prior to MJs death. So she knew, just not the details.

One to two days prior to DECEDENT’s call to his mother, Plaintiff had told his mother about the call he had received from DECEDENT and that he had declined to testify at the criminal trial. Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that DECEDENT was a “bad man,” but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the very briefest statement that he had been abused. Plaintiff told his mother not to let DECEDENT know that she had found out. Plaintiff was panicked that DECEDENT would find out that he had told his mother. When DECEDENT called Plaintiffs mother, she pretended that she was not aware of DECEDENT’s earlier threatening call to her son, or about the abuse.

Hannibal_Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Told you. I’m too busy to be anyone’s personal researcher. Look it up yourself and come to your own conclusions

And his music has been effectively banned on RTÉ ! Great news.

I bet his dwindling number of hardcore fans will probably bombard RTÉ switchboard to play tripe such as “You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk) or “Earth song”

Pathetic indeed

Im pretty sure i read earlier that sales of his music are up.