Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sephiroth_dude · 06-03-2019 04:20PM

turbbo wrote: »

I'm obviously trolling - a deluded Mickey fan is worth trolling.:D

MOD

Do us all a favour and don't post in this thread again.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 04:40PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I have never been in that position, so very hard to answer.

I imagine that I would look for what I thought would be the most credible person I could put on the stand to speak in my defence. I would then work with that witness to ensure they put out the story that best suited my needs.

If there was any issues that they could talk about that I would prefer them not to, I would ask them to lie for me, for us. Think of your family, imagine the shame on your mother if you admit to what you did. Imagine what will happen to your brothers and sisters. And forget about ever working in the US again, or getting access to famous people or parties. Remember, I only did any of that because you asked me to, it was your fault for it all, you let me do it.

If you tell the truth, nobody is going to believe you anyway. Who are you? A nobody that I took into my home. A nobody whose family needs you to stay with me to continue to enjoy nice things. But if you try to tell any stories, I will tear you apart. I will tear your family apart. I will say it was your fault, your parents fault. That I only wanted to be friends but now you make all these crazy stories up for money.

If I can make all that up in a few minutes, don't you reckon his lawyers could have done much more in the time they had?

I read that in Liam Neesons voice.

The simple answer is you put the man on the stand that wasn't anally raped.

But you know that.

Leroy42 · 06-03-2019 04:46PM

Boggles wrote: »

I read that in Liam Neesons voice.

The simple answer is you put the man on the stand that wasn't anally raped.

But you know that.

Ah, so you just ignore anything that I say and stick rigidly to your position.

It seems you are unable to consider anything other than the simple. 'It must be this because its the one I would do' seems to be the only rationale behind your reasoning.

I guess you are right. He was totally telling the truth then and now off the top of his head, simply made up all this stuff.

And got the other person to make up their own story as well.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 04:46PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That's not what he said at all. Have you actually watched it yet?

It isn't out yet over here.

But you do realize none of this is new, this are "old" allegations, he has given multiple interviews about them.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If you have and you still don't believe them then I don't believe that you aren't a crazed, delusional fan tbh

But I'm not a fan, I couldn't give 2 fooks if you believe me or not.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The alternative is that you are just a run of the mill paedophile apologist. Neither are a great look

Is there something wrong with you, seriously? What an absolute vile disgusting thing to accuse any one of.

FFS! :mad:

Boggles · 06-03-2019 04:47PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems you are unable to consider anything other than the simple.

Most logical.

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 05:03PM

Boggles wrote: »

I couldn't give 2 fooks

The word is fuck. Jesus Christ. Unless you’re doing a Johnny Vegas impression just write the proper word ffs. Albeit it’s about the least irrating thing about your posts it’s still irritating nonetheless.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 05:13PM

fOOking Hell!

Rattle, Rattle!

:rolleyes:

ceadaoin. · 06-03-2019 05:15PM

Boggles wrote: »

It isn't out yet over here.

But you do realize none of this is new, this are "old" allegations, he has given multiple interviews about them.

But I'm not a fan, I couldn't give 2 fooks if you believe me or not.

Is there something wrong with you, seriously? What an absolute vile disgusting thing to accuse any one of.

FFS! :mad:

You are defending down to the ground a man who has been accused of abusing several children and who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile. I'm not sure what else to call it tbh.

You focus on Robson and pretty much ignore Safechuck. Has he done interviews before this? Aside from when he was a child he hasn't defended Jackson publicly. I'm not sure you can cast aspersions on him or his character

Theboinkmaster · 06-03-2019 05:18PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile.

What are these behaviours exactly?

Leroy42 · 06-03-2019 05:20PM

Boggles wrote: »

Most logical.

So only the most logical can possibly happen? Is that what you are saying now?

But most logical based on what? Your position, his position at the time? You claim 'most logical' without knowing all the facts, without which you can't possibly claim its the most logical.

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 05:23PM

Believing Jackson is innocent requires an absurd leap in logic to the extent you need to almost reprogramme your brain to ignore every single red flag and spidey sense we’ve ever learned to be suspicious of and excuse inappropriate behaviour purely because he happens to have money, and make a one off justification for creepy behaviour and give allowances where no other person the world over would be given them. People would rather believe he was the default victim of continual misfortune through no fault of his own than acknowledge that maybe the old man who liked to share his bed with little boys actually did do inappropriate things with them.

ToBeFrank123 · 06-03-2019 05:24PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You are defending down to the ground a man who has been accused of abusing several children and who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile. I'm not sure what else to call it tbh.

You focus on Robson and pretty much ignore Safechuck. Has he done interviews before this? Aside from when he was a child he hasn't defended Jackson publicly. I'm not sure you can cast aspersions on him or his character

This is nonsense. In fact there's been a whole pile of nonsense spewed about Jackson pretty much his whole life.

Its easy to make accusations against the dead, particularly if you are trying to get a payout from their estate.

We don't really know if Jackson is guilty or not, only a criminal trial on front of a judge and jury can determine that.

I'm reminded of the recent Yewtree witchhunt in the UK. Yes it caught a number of people but importantly they were tried and convicted in a court of law. Some on the otherhand were tried and found wholly innocent. Some like Ted Heath as well as other prominent politicians, some dead now, had their names dragged through the mud but with little hard evidence to back up the accusations. One of the main accusers is currently on trial for perverting the course of justice, ie lying.

We need to see more solid evidence before rushing to judgement. Jackson was investigated for decades by the police and they found nothing.

Jackson may be guilty, he may not be. Its very difficult to say based on the testimony of two guys who have an agenda. If there wasn't money involved, I'd believe them right away. But until we see further solid evidence we only have their word.

sligeach · 06-03-2019 05:26PM

8-10 wrote: »

And in fairness to those saying "watch the documentary", it's actually only out tonight in this side of the pond. Channel 4 have the exclusive.

So a bit of patience on that part, many of us are intending on watching it once it's out over here and I'm sure it'll drive a lot more discussion on this thread from tomorrow

Ray Darcy didn't wait before judging. On 31st January he said that right after Liveline had finished, where another pr1ck had been on Liveline and went largely unchecked by Joe, spouting allegations as fact, hadn't seen the show, sure nobody had outside of Sundance. He compared Jackson to Hitler, talked about Jimmy Saville and other proven scumbags. No balance, nobody to challenge his opinion. These are allegations that stink rotten of bull$h1t, a simple Google search reveals the truth.

He starts his BS around 40:45.

https://cdn.rasset.ie/manifest/audio/2019/0131/20190131_rteradio1-liveline-liveline_cl10992706_10995105_261_/manifest.m3u8

Ray then comes on at 3, immediately following the news and starts off by saying after listening to the pr1ck on Liveline that he wouldn't be playing Michael Jackson music in future.

Judge, jury and executioner, a fine example of how the media just jump on the bandwagon without seeing the documentary or doing any research that debunks these 2 proven liars.

Then yesterday he had the dirtbag director of the mockumentary, Dan Reed on his radio show.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 05:27PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You are defending down to the ground a man who has been accused of abusing several children and who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile. I'm not sure what else to call it tbh.

I'm not defending anyone, I'm objectively looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on what I think is most probably.

But why do you feel the need to call anyone anything, especially something so vile, just because they disagree with your opinion?

Boggles · 06-03-2019 05:31PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So only the most logical can possibly happen? Is that what you are saying now?

But most logical based on what? Your position, his position at the time? You claim 'most logical' without knowing all the facts, without which you can't possibly claim its the most logical.

In lieu of all the facts, then yes leaning on the must logical scenario is prudent. It's pretty well established.

You can go down as many rabbit holes of conjecture that you want but that is itself more fantasy than fact.

SusieBlue · 06-03-2019 05:39PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Believing Jackson is innocent requires an absurd leap in logic to the extent you need to almost reprogramme your brain to ignore every single red flag and spidey sense we’ve ever learned to be suspicious of and excuse inappropriate behaviour purely because he happens to have money, and make a one off justification for creepy behaviour and give allowances where no other person the world over would be given them. People would rather believe he was the default victim of continual misfortune through no fault of his own than acknowledge that maybe the old man who liked to share his bed with little boys actually did do inappropriate things with them.

Completely agree.
Change the context from "befriending" little boys, to "befriending" little girls and I guarantee there would be no one here defending him.

Ironically I've seen some of the people jumping to his defense here bemoaning mens issues being ignored in favour of womens, and posting about how females are the more favoured gender elsewhere on Boards.

Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.
The mind boggles.

As an aside it confirms why men are less likely report sexual abuse and assault than women are.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 05:40PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.

There isn't one "sane" person on this thread that says that is "perfectly ok".

Swing and miss I'm afraid.

Ashbourne hoop · 06-03-2019 05:42PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Completely agree.
Change the context from "befriending" little boys, to "befriending" little girls and I guarantee there would be no one here defending him.

Ironically I've seen some of the people jumping to his defense here bemoaning mens issues being ignored in favour of womens, and posting about how females are the more favoured gender elsewhere on Boards.

Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.
The mind boggles.

As an aside it confirms why men are less likely report sexual abuse and assault than women are.

Don't recall reading anyone saying this on the thread....

Leroy42 · 06-03-2019 05:42PM

Boggles wrote: »

In lieu of all the facts, then yes leaning on the must logical scenario is prudent. It's pretty well established.

You can go down as many rabbit holes of conjecture that you want but that is itself more fantasy than fact.

But again, its only logical from your perspective. You have created a narrative without all the facts, into which this 'most logical' fits perfectly.

You asked the question, why would he get this guy to be the star witness and not others, and I pointed out many reasons why that would be logical from a certain perspective.

What we do know is that this guy stood up in court and stated that MJ had never done anything, and then years later claimed he did. So either he was lying then or he is lying now. I have provided you with plenty of recent examples of people lying to cover abusers and only later coming forward with the truth so we know this can happen.

But even if you want to stick to the line that he was telling the truth then, which your position on why would MJ place him as a star defender is based on, then one needs to ask why he would not only lie now, but also get a totally unconnected person to lie at the same time.

SusieBlue · 06-03-2019 05:43PM

Boggles wrote: »

There isn't one "sane" person on this thread that says that is "perfectly ok".

Swing and miss I'm afraid.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Don't recall reading anyone saying this on the thread....

I've seen plenty of posts dismissing him as an odd, eccentric character who meant no harm.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 05:44PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I've seen plenty of posts dismissing him as an odd, eccentric character who meant no harm.

Make a claim, post it up.

Ashbourne hoop · 06-03-2019 05:46PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I've seen plenty of posts dismissing him as an odd, eccentric character who meant no harm.

You said "Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.
The mind boggles. "I don't recall anyone saying this.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 05:48PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But again, its only logical from your perspective. You have created a narrative without all the facts, into which this 'most logical' fits perfectly.

You asked the question, why would he get this guy to be the star witness and not others, and I pointed out many reasons why that would be logical from a certain perspective.
.

But it isn't just from my perspective.

Defense Trials 101.

Never ever put a potential hostile witness on the stand. Especially if you don't have to.

The prosecution actually did this with the boys mother in 2005, the prosecution barrister had to object to his own witness. :P

She was one of the main reasons the trial fell apart according to the Jury members.

ceadaoin. · 06-03-2019 05:54PM

Boggles wrote: »

Make a claim, post it up.

Well here is one, comparing Michael sharing a bed with children to just kids hanging out. This despite the fact that Michael was in his 30s at the time

sligeach wrote: »

What sex did you mostly hang out with as a kid. I think most boys hung around with mostly lads.

Leroy42 · 06-03-2019 05:57PM

Totally agree, but I am pretty sure they were already sure he wouldn't be a hostile witness, for the reasons I have pointed out many times but you continue to ignore.

I get it, you believe totally that the testimony he gave at the trial was 100% true. That is was given without any direction, but that everything he is saying now is a bunch of lies simply to make money.

There are plenty of examples of prosecution witness going onto the stand and suddenly opting for take the defence side. It would be logical for abused wifes to take the stand against their husband but for some illogical reason they don't. Logic is always that straighforward as you seem to think.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 06:00PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I get it, you believe totally that the testimony he gave at the trial was 100% true. That is was given without any coercion or direction, but that everything he is saying now is a bunch of lies simply to make money.

Hang on, I certainly believe there was direction which would be standard fare but not coercion.

Where are you getting this from, there is absolutely no evidence of this and not even Robson himself is claiming it AFAIK?

Leroy42 · 06-03-2019 06:07PM

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on, I certainly believe there was direction which would be standard fare but not coercion.

Where are you getting this from, there is absolutely no evidence of this and not even Robson himself is claiming it AFAIK?

Absolutely right, I have amended the post to remove it.

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

Boggles · 06-03-2019 06:09PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Absolutely right, I have amended the post to remove it.

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

In every trial prosecution and defense witnesses will be directed and prepared.

It's pretty standard fair. It's called Witness Preparation and is part of any lawyers training.

First link I came across.

https://www.kramerslaw.com/evidence/testifying-tips

The boys mother in 2005 broke every single one of those "rules".

She was a hostile witness and is the very reason you don't put them up unless you absolutely have to.

Coercion on the under hand is illegal.

Leroy42 · 06-03-2019 06:14PM

So yet again you totally fail to answer a direct question. I am picking up a pattern here.

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

Boggles · 06-03-2019 06:20PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So yet again you totally fail to answer a direct question. I am picking up a pattern here.

Easy there, I answered the question as best I could

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

How would I know, I wasn't there? How would anyone here know? Jacksons lawyers know and Robson himself would know, but he has made no complaints about it.

But there would almost be certainly a run through of the questions and potential questions the prosecution may ask a witness.

You cannot instruct a witness not to the tell the truth, because not only will you not be able practice law anymore you will go to prison if caught, you chose not to put them on the stand.

Is there actual evidence of this, or are you just gone down another rabbit hole of conjecture?

If you are, it's slightly odd that you have a massive problem with the most plausible logical scenario but you have no problem playing fantasy.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments