Micky Jackson in trouble again

tylercheribini

tylercheribini wrote: »

Current Tesco ad still running with a Jackson Five number, must be some unwritten rule saying that music produced whilst he was too yooung to be a paedophile is grand.

So, what you're saying is, maybe we should blame it on the boggie?

8-10

Tumbleweed

Smertrius

https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-1&hsimp=yhs-1&hspart=iba&p=leaving+neverland+wade+robson+apologise#id=2&vid=8a57f794a53f3253170b759b406913e5&action=view

wade robson is lying

from wade ex gf

Deebles McBeebles

tylercheribini wrote: »

Current Tesco ad still running with a Jackson Five number, must be some unwritten rule saying that music produced whilst he was too yooung to be a paedophile is grand.

The rest of it is grand too. Its music, not his c*ck.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

micar wrote: »

Watching the film brought back a lot of bad memories for me. I was abused as a child by a person outside of my family who is now deceased.

My experience is nothing like what those boys described but stuff still happened.

The only person I ever told was an ex girlfriend.

I suppose I have never properly dealt with it. I know it was not my fault and I've nothing to be ashamed about.

It's very hard not to be able to respond to comments on Facebook with my opinion and experience as all my friends could read. I've even considered sending them a private message. But they could easily post a screenshot.

I've not read one comment on Facebook from an abuse victim. It's a very private matter which many victims would not want made public.

The hardest part for me watching the film was when the guy eventually admitted it to his brother. The manner in which he became so emotional tells me that what these guys say is true.

Describing it to a stranger and a loved one is emotionally very different.

You could create a dummy Facebook account? If you felt you had comments to make that would aid the discussion. Be upfront about posting from an anonymous FB account and your reasons for doing so.

Thank you for sharing here. And I agree that part where Wade describes telling his family at the food trucks was really intense. Especially his poor sister. That must have been so hard for you to watch.

BorneTobyWilde

I'm tired of bein' the victim of shame!!!!
You're throwing me in a class with a bad name!!!
I can't believe this is the land from which I came!

Duckworth_Luas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9lRN_f9bNw

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9lRN_f9bNw

SO funny. So goddamn funny (unusually for SNL). My favourite joke begins at 1 minute 24 seconds. The nasal, monotone voice helps too.

MacDonald had some stones on him. Jackson was alive when most of those jokes were uttered. Bravo.

valoren

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

SO funny. So goddamn funny (unusually for SNL). My favourite joke begins at 1 minute 24 seconds. The nasal, monotone voice helps too.

MacDonald had some stones on him. Jackson was alive when most of those jokes were uttered. Bravo.

The 2 were never a good match, she's more of the stay at home type while he's a homosexual pedophile.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

valoren wrote: »

The 2 were never a good match, she's more of the stay at home type while he's a homosexual pedophile.

“Doctors say his condition is stable and continues to improve - although he is still a freak. :pac: :pac: :pac:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

A very interesting opinion piece on why the writer (who believes Robson and Safechuck) thinks Reed actually did them a disservice by leaving some information out of the documentary, such as the legal actions they’ve taken. She believes it would have bolstered their assertions rather than discredit them.

The most astute point she makes is that it’s no surprise that Jackson targeted children whose parents were on the make.

https://slate.com/culture/2019/02/leaving-neverland-accusers-wade-robson-james-safechuck.amp

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

She believes it would have bolstered their assertions rather than discredit them.
]

She is wrong, IMO.

Common sense would dictate that if it was a balanced piece of filming making which incorporated the whole story and not just the 2 lads point of view opinion would be far more split.

We have had 1 or 2 posters on here, watch the documentary, state they believed them 100% until they went off and did a bit of background research and it at least left some significant doubt in their minds after reading about details left out of the "documentary".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

She is wrong, IMO.

Common sense would dictate that if it was a balanced piece of filming making which incorporated the whole story and not just the 2 lads point of view opinion would be far more split.

We have had 1 or 2 posters on here, watch the documentary, state they believed them 100% until they went off and did a bit of background research and it at least left some significant doubt in their minds after reading about details left out of the "documentary".

Everyone knows the MJ estate party line at this stage. The documentary wasn’t about him, it was about the two men.

Though personally, I’d have been absolutely fine with more characterisation of Jackson in the documentary. Refreshing the memory of viewers of the weird shít he admitted to would be no bad thing. And I don’t think having the party line trotted out by the MJ estate and his family (who all have no ulterior motive themselves of course) would be the boon his defenders think it would be either.

If people don’t believe the two men, that’s their call. Nothing that has come out since the documentary has changed my mind personally. And, yes, it’s a documentary, not a “documentary”.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Everyone knows the MJ estate party line at this stage. The documentary wasn’t about him, it was about the two men.

Though personally, I’d have been absolutely fine with more characterisation of Jackson in the documentary. Refreshing the memory of viewers of the weird shít he admitted to would be no bad thing. And I don’t think having the party line trotted out by the MJ estate and his family (who all have no ulterior motive themselves of course) would be the boon his defenders think it would be either.

If people don’t believe the two men, that’s their call. Nothing that has come out since the documentary has changed my mind personally. And, yes, it’s a documentary, not a “documentary”.

There's a lot more to the other side than the estate's party line, that's the problem.

retro:electro

You’d have to admire the persistence of the Jackson defenders at this stage. They’re worse than Theresa May, coming back time after time with the same argument dressed up as new points. Pity no one’s interested. No deal

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Everyone knows the MJ estate party line at this stage.

There is far more to it than the "estate party line" and it's pretty disingenuous to write anyone off who has simply offered a different view or narrative based on a more complete picture.

But I agree any documentary released by the estate to combat this one may redress the balance somewhat, but it won't be balanced, what a documentary (the best ones) in my opinion should be.

The whole story needs to be comprehensively told IMO, with balance, facts and alternating view points. At some stage it probably will be a 12 part from Netflix or one of them given the vast scope of it. It may be some years away, as this current chapter is still in motion.

Lets not forget they have made the most serious allegations against people who are still alive, and have named them in court documents. It would appear that once the appeal is ruled on there will be lawsuits going the other way, apparently Jackson's kids are taking legal advice.

Smertrius

its wrong to have documentary , 2 people accusing a dead person , more rightful for 2 people accusing go to court and justice deal with it

i want evidence from all the children michael jackson was with at neverland, evidence from 2 people isn't enough to accuse him as pedophile, remember this from a tv show not testify from court case, nobody has gone to court yet it still wrong to make accuse him sexually abusing children on tv, they should brought this to court end of story, bring it to court is rightful way end of story this why we have rules, the law and regulations to protect us from wrong

My news feed now has the odd Michael Jackson article popping up.

I found this one interesting:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8771319/leaving-neverland-james-safechuck-michael-jackson-train-station/

MJ supporters: Yet another example of where Safechuck was lying.

Safechuck/Robson supporters: This only shows he was confused about when the abuse ended. It must have gone on until when he was 16/17 rather than ending when he was 14.

IAMAMORON

Basil3 wrote: »

My news feed now has the odd Michael Jackson article popping up.

I found this one interesting:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8771319/leaving-neverland-james-safechuck-michael-jackson-train-station/

MJ supporters: Yet another example of where Safechuck was lying.

Safechuck/Robson supporters: This only shows he was confused about when the abuse ended. It must have gone on until when he was 16/17 rather than ending when he was 14.

Yeah it obviously never happened, because The Sun newspaper would know. They're good like that.

IAMAMORON

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Yeah it obviously never happened, because The Sun newspaper would know. They're good like that.

That's the link that showed up in my news feed, but feel free to look it up from another news source if it makes you feel any better

8-10

Basil3 wrote: »

That's the link that showed up in my news feed, but feel free to look it up from another news source if it makes you feel any better

Don't buy the S*n

Don't give them the clicks

Ursus Horribilis

Ah jaysus, is this still rumbling on?

ToBeFrank123

Whether you believe Jackson is guilty or not, its actually laughable that people would doubt something that Reed himself admits must be untrue.

The source of this story is not the Sun. The source is Smallcombe's twitter, Smallcombe being a biographer who produced evidence that the train station was not built until two years after Safechuck claimed to be abused. So this calls into question some timelines.

Here is a non Sun link.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/entertainment/celebrity/leaving-neverland-director-challenged-on-jackson-abuse-dates-and-agrees-they-could-be-wrong/ar-BBVwnlv?ocid=spartanntp

And here is the conversation.

Mike Smallcombe
@mikesmallcombe1


So @danreed1000 is now saying because the story has been debunked, suddenly the end of Safechuck’s abuse was when he was 16/17 rather than 14. It’s a three year discrepancy. Just hold your hands up, don’t change the story. This is what happens when you don’t investigate properly.
Dan Reed
@danreed1000
Replying to @mikesmallcombe1
Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.

2,067
4:02 PM - Mar 31, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,092 people are talking about this

And you wonder why many people think Safechuck is talking through his...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Well, Dan Reed didn’t ignore it. He said “Yup, that’s a discrepancy.”. A good thing, no?

It isn’t a smoking gun that Safechuck is lying though. I have a lot of people in my life, both young adults and old who have absolutely shocking memories for when events happened, even relatively recent events. They are sometimes off by years.

So, we can’t conclude anything from this really. Anyone with good memory can’t understand this but some people have awful memories. I am constantly agog at how my husband can’t recall exactly when some big events in our relationship happened.

It is very telling of how much harder James Safechuck has been to discredit than Robson though that stuff like this is being dug up.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, Dan Reed didn’t ignore it. He said “Yup, that’s a discrepancy.”. A good thing, no?

It isn’t a smoking gun that Safechuck is lying though. I have a lot of people in my life, both young adults and old who have absolutely shocking memories for when events happened, even relatively recent events. They are sometimes off by years.

So, we can’t conclude anything from this really. Anyone with good memory can’t understand this but some people have awful memories. I am constantly agog at how my husband can’t recall exactly when some big events in our relationship happened.

It is very telling of how much harder James Safechuck has been to discredit than Robson though that stuff like this is being dug up.

I just don't get how they can be 3 years out in their timelines. And then Reed tries to stretch things to make the "truth" fit.

I'm still on the fence about Jackson's guilt or not, and like others I'd like to see a proper investigation and a proper two sided documentary so we can actually get at the truth.

But Reed's documentary was as shoddy and embarrassing a piece of investigate journalism as you can get. 3 years out in one time line. How on earth can you be 3 years out? Its mind boggling. If this was an article for the Washington Post or NYtimes, he'd have been fired for inaccuracies and poor research.

Reed seems to be making it up as he goes along.

And Smallcombes intervention shows the absolute critical importance of detailing both sides.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I just don't get how they can be 3 years out in their timelines. And then Reed tries to stretch things to make the "truth" fit.

I'm still on the fence about Jackson's guilt or not, and like others I'd like to see a proper investigation and a proper two sided documentary so we can actually get at the truth.

Reed's documentary was as shoddy and embarrassing a piece of investigate journalism you can get. 3 years out in one time line. How on earth can you be 3 years out? Its mind boggling. If this was a piece for the Washington Post or NYtimes, he'd have been fired for inaccuracies.

Well, firstly, it could be only two years. And it’s a quarter century ago. A quarter century. It’s not surprising to me that the dates of recollections might be a bit off.

Sexual crimes reported soon after they happened are difficult enough to prove. The task of proving this happened would be near impossible. But it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I honestly thing that the only think that would convince MJ’s most ardent defenders is a videotape of abuse happening. And even then, I think some would set out to prove that it’s fake.

Reed’s documentary was about these two men telling their story. I find it odd that people talk about it like it should be a trial. I have never watched any documentary ever that took that format and I’ve watched a lot of documentaries. The men told their stories and people can make up their minds.

As for your claim that he’d be fired for that discrepancy if he worked for the NYT or Washington Post. No he wouldn’t. The NYT posts corrections and clarifications all the time. It’s known for it. They understand that journalists are human and mistakes can be made.

I find your claim that you are on the fence to be mealy-mouthed, to be honest. You have never posted anything in favour of either Reed or the two men featured in the documentary. I feel like someone truly on the fence would have at least something positive to say about them.

ceadaoin.

There's two railroads at Neverland. One was definitely in existence at the time Safechuck said. It's entirely possible there was another train station too. All that we know is that a new station was built in 1993 or whenever the year was. So I don't think it's definitive proof either way. There's a hell of a lot of other stuff in his account that doesn't include the train station and can't be disproven

The amusement park included two railroads: one 3 ft (914 mm) narrow gauge named "Neverland Valley Railroad", with a steam locomotive named Katherine after his mother (Crown 4-4-0 (2B), built in 1973), and two coaches. The other was a 2 ft (610 mm) narrow gauge, with a C. P. Huntington replica locomotive made by Chance Rides.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There's two railroads at Neverland. One was definitely in existence at the time Safechuck said. It's entirely possible there was another train station too. All that we know is that a new station was built in 1993 or whenever the year was. So I don't think it's definitive proof either way. There's a hell of a lot of other stuff in his account that doesn't include the train station and can't be disproven

And some of the things he says in the documentary seem very likely to have happened. Unless Jackson was hanging around jewellery stores in Safechuck’s hometown with a child who wasn’t Safechuck. Possible, but unlikely. And he mentioned the rooms above the cinema.

Interesting about there being two railroads. Though maybe the station building wasn’t built until the second railway was. But maybe there was some kind of building there before. Who knows? It will be treated like a smoking gun by MJ superfans though. In other news, water is wet. And people wonder why more victims don’t come forward? Who would offer themselves up to have their character undermined publicly? Nobody has lived a perfect life.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And some of the things he says in the documentary seem very likely to have happened. Unless Jackson was hanging around jewellery stores in Safechuck’s hometown with a child who wasn’t Safechuck. Possible, but unlikely. And he mentioned the rooms above the cinema.

Interesting about there being two railroads. Though maybe the station building wasn’t built until the second railway was. But maybe there was some kind of building there before. Who knows? It will be treated like a smoking gun by MJ superfans though. In other news, water is wet. And people wonder why more victims don’t come forward? Who would offer themselves up to have their character undermined publicly? Nobody has lived a perfect life.

It's usually journalists who seem to come up with discrepancies in their stories, but they're probably just MJ superfans who just happen to be journalists.

hetuzozaho

Basil3 wrote: »

but they're probably just MJ superfans who just happen to be journalists.

Yup you're prob dead right. With a super star like Jackson it's probably the case, and at a time when a lot of journalists were growing up.