Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 · 06-03-2019 06:22PM

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 direction, but that everything he is saying now is a bunch of lies simply to make money.

You do realise that in the documentary they were coached, given direction and had take after take to get the story just right. It wasn't a straight question & answer session. It was rehearsed, coached and directed

Jimbob1977 · 06-03-2019 06:25PM

The scenario is exactly like Jimmy Saville.

Both men went to their graves with no convictions against their names.

If only they had been held properly accountable during their lifetimes.

You can't convict a corpse.

end of the road · 06-03-2019 06:35PM

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.

any posts that i have read that have commented on jackson sharing a bed with children have said that it was not normal behaviour and it was wrong. that it proves jackson was a strange individual, but such behaviour alone is not proof of a crime or paedophilia. i have not read any posts that have said jackson sharing a bed with children is okay, all though i haven't read every single post in the thread. so if anyone has said it was okay, i'd suspect it is a very very minority view probably only shared by 1 or 2 posters at most. quite rightly, it's not a widely held view if it is even held at all. jackson has been investigated for years. there has been 1 trial with a not guilty outcome. if jackson genuinely was a paedophile rather then simply a strange oddball then there would be something of substance to show it, something which would insure that even the most hardened jackson fan wouldn't be able to defend or explain away his behaviour and wouldn't be able to come to any other conclusion then he was a paedophile. but nothing. there is no question jackson sharing a bed with strange children was not normal behaviour. that it was wrong behaviour even if his intentions were innocent. however to accuse him of being an actual paedophile does need serious proof and simply sharing a bed with children isn't itself enough proof as abnormal as it is .
when someone is highly deffensive of jackson, someone who it seems benefited hugely because of jackson, eventually turns around and says the opposite, and it turns out that they seem to have changed their tune when they no longer seem to be reaping the benefits they got from being within the jackson circle, then it is not surprising that people will be suspicious of them, their words and the motives for them making their allegations.

SusieBlue wrote: »

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

to be fair, that is very different to people saying that its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis. it's clearly not. one can absolutely believe that jackson was an oddball who meant no harm, but still agree that sharing the bed with a little boy was abnormal and wrong behaviour and that he should have not under any circumstances, engaged in such behaviour.

sligeach · 06-03-2019 06:46PM

Michael Jackson's nephew Taj defends his uncle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWYMPF00q2k

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AWYMPF00q2k

ceadaoin. · 06-03-2019 06:47PM

I don't know if the Oprah interview with them and the director afterwards will be shown there? It's definitely worth a watch. Abuse survivors in the audience explain (including Anthony Edwards from ER who spoke out about his abuse last year) why they lied for years and denied their abuse. It really is a very common thing. Given how prevalent child abuse is, there are more people denying their abuse than are making false allegations.

His family are the ones with the vested interest in shutting down victims. They stand to lose a lot of money. Remember when Latoya admitted he was abuser and that she herself was sexually abused as a child (not by Michael, I think Joe?) All his defenders are quick to accept her later claim that her husband forced her to say that but the idea that Jackson groomed these children into defending him (as abusers are known to do) is just completely ludicrous?

Boggles · 06-03-2019 07:09PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Remember when Latoya admitted he was abuser and that she herself was sexually abused as a child (not by Michael, I think Joe?) All his defenders are quick to accept her later claim that her husband forced her to say that

He almost beat her to death in forcing her to say it.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

but the idea that Jackson groomed these children into defending him (as abusers are known to do) is just completely ludicrous?

What is completely ludicrous is putting one of them on the stand as the first key witness. As Jacksons nephew said above, one foul word from Robson and Jackson is going to prison for the rest of his life.

But fook the logic right, we just all love paedo's?

ceadaoin. · 06-03-2019 07:17PM

Boggles wrote: »

He almost beat her to death in forcing her to say it.

What is completely ludicrous is putting one of them on the stand as the first key witness. As Jacksons nephew said above, one foul word from Robson and Jackson is going to prison for the rest of his life.

But fook the logic right, we just all love paedo's?

It's perfectly logical when you take into account the fact that he was groomed from 7 years of age. And actually in the doc he says he told Michael no at first, that he wouldn't testify. It was his mother who convinced him to do it because he still couldn't bring himself to tell her of the abuse and justify to her why he wouldn't and she was on at him to "help his dear friend" or whatever.

Logic all over the place, to me at least

Bunny Colvin · 06-03-2019 07:23PM

Boggles wrote: »

What is completely ludicrous is putting one of them on the stand as the first key witness. As Jacksons nephew said above, one foul word from Robson and Jackson is going to prison for the rest of his life.

But fook the logic right, we just all love paedo's?

His defence team probably thought it was the worth the risk, it was very credible testimony considering the fact that he had spent a lot of time with Jackson when he was a child.

Robson also said he was coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 08:10PM

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

His defence team probably thought it was the worth the risk,

There isn't a defense team in the world that would risk that, not a competent one anyway.

Why would they, the case against Jackson was so flimsy and farcical it would have been suicide to do it.

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

Robson also said he was coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say.

Absolute standard practice.

But you are forgetting he was cross examined, it was brutal and extreme apparently. He flew through it, as did his sister and mother who also testified.

Fast forward 8 years later when he is telling another "truth" under deposition, he couldn't get half his story straight.

sligeach · 06-03-2019 08:13PM

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

His defence team probably thought it was the worth the risk, it was very credible testimony considering the fact that he had spent a lot of time with Jackson when he was a child.

Robson also said he was coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say.

Right, because his defense team knew Michael was a paedophile and had abused Robson, but whatever, took a chance anyway, because it was only like Michael's freedom at stake, his reputation, his legacy, his fortune, etc. It would have been beyond ludicrous for Michael to want Robson to take the stand as a witness, he was the first defense witness, had he abused him.

But you are right though, it was credible testimony, because Robson told the truth during the trial.

I think you're mixing up that last line with his acting in Leaving Neverland.

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 08:23PM

It’s more likely that Jackson’s defence team didn’t know that Robson was former victim himself when asked to take the stand, and Michael could hardly say “no we won’t ask him just in case he spills the beans about the time I anally raped him”.

Boggles · 06-03-2019 08:34PM

Jackson's defense team grilled all the witnesses before putting them on the stand, it's absolute standard practice.

Robson passed that and he passed a brutal and extreme cross examination with flying colors.

There wasn't a question he faulted or hesitated on.

That is just amazing from such an alleged reluctant witness.

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 08:39PM

“There wasn’t a question he faulted or hesitated on”

Yeah that’ll be the coaching. That actually sounds suspiciously unnatural to me while being put in a situation that 99% of people would feel stress and pressure under.
Strange.

But lemme guess.. “rattle rattle.. fook fook”

turbbo · 06-03-2019 09:57PM

Boggles wrote: »

Make a claim, post it up.

suicide_circus wrote:

I think we're forgetting something very important in all of this. Okay, sure, he touched some children, but the man is a great singer and he has entertained us for so many years.All this baad-mouthin' and puttin' the man down. Maybe he did touch some children now and then, but come on! It's Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson!

:P

fin12 · 06-03-2019 10:08PM

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

The scenario is exactly like Jimmy Saville.

Both men went to their graves with no convictions against their names.

If only they had been held properly accountable during their lifetimes.

You can't convict a corpse.

Are u for real? Michael Jackson has been accused of these malicious false accusations for years during his time on earth, it contributed a lot to him dying so young.

In contrast Jimmy Seville died a very old man and only all the accusations against him started to flood in after his death.

Michael Jackson wasn’t given a moments peace on this earth and he is still being hounded in death. Hopefully the Jackson estate are taking a lawsuit out again the makers of this documentary.

And that Oprah Winfrey, racist b*tch, she’s jumping on the bandwagon now cause hated the fact Michael wanted to be white. She was all over him like a fly on sh*te when he was still black.

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 10:12PM

He died because he was a drug addict :rolleyes: probably roofing himself was the only way to drown out the fact he molested a loads of kids

Mam of 4 · 06-03-2019 10:12PM

It's on Ch 4 now if anyone hasn't seen it yet .

turbbo · 06-03-2019 10:14PM

fin12 wrote: »

And that Oprah Winfrey, racist b*tch, she’s jumping on the bandwagon now cause hated the fact Michael wanted to be white. She was all over him like a fly on sh*te when he was still black.

wtf?

turbbo · 06-03-2019 10:15PM

Great article here in the NYT says it all really...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/arts/television/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-martin-bashir.html

ceadaoin. · 06-03-2019 10:48PM

So it's on now. I wonder can the Michael defenders who still don't believe these claims afterwards tell me the reasons they don't believe James Safechuck? I get why you might not want to back down about Robson, the MJ machine has gone all in on discrediting him.

But I have never seen a more sincere and honest account of abuse from a clearly very damaged and traumatised person than what I witnessed from James in Leaving Neverland. We are expected to believe he and his family are making it all up because why? He's never defended Michael since he was a child and still under Michael's influence . Never "changed his story". He refused to testify in 2005 despite Jackson dangling the carrot of helping him with movies over his head. What does that say?

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 10:52PM

Also a very valid point there. When you are being told for seven years straight that if anyone finds out about this we will both be in big trouble, it’s very hard to get out of the rhythm of that oppressive thought. Seven years being groomed, how many years does it take to feel free from the process? Also moving the parents further and further away from their room each time... Jesus.

ceadaoin. · 06-03-2019 10:56PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Also a very valid point there. When you are being told for seven years straight that if anyone finds out about this we will both be in big trouble, it’s very hard to get out of the rhythm of that oppressive thought. Seven years being groomed, how many years does it take to feel free from the process? Also moving the parents further and further away from their room each time... Jesus.

Safechuck said on the Oprah thing that even over this past weekend he has been feeling so guilty for "telling" on Michael and putting it all out there. People forget just how much events of your childhood stay in your psyche

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 11:06PM

What is also abundantly clear is how absolutely awe struck those kids were for Michael and would have done absolutely anything to please him. Probably another reason why Michael “preferred” them over the likes of Culkin and Feldman who were established industry stars with regular celebrity attachments and didn’t view him in the same light as a normal run of the mill 8 year old child would. It’s very easy to exploit someone who would do absolutely anything to be in your company.

Motivator · 06-03-2019 11:29PM

Whatever went on, the parents are at fault for all of it. Whoring out their kids so they could love the high life that was provided by that wierdo Jackson.

Sheeps · 06-03-2019 11:31PM

Don't believe a word of it. Seems Michael Jackson is an easy target in the age of the "me too" movement to make a quick buck against the estate since he's not around to present a defence. No thanks. The alleged victims, in this case, have absolutely no credibility, and ill never forgive them for making me agree with Piers Morgan on the topic.

end of the road · 06-03-2019 11:33PM

retro:electro wrote: »

He died because he was a drug addict probably roofing himself was the only way to drown out the fact he molested a loads of kids

allegedly is the very important word you are missing from the second part of your post.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 06-03-2019 11:37PM

How many children went through the gates of Neverland over the years. How many were invited more than once. How many were asked to stay the night. How many were asked to go on over night stays. How many did he end up abusing?

The number gets less and less like trying to win X Factor.

With or without a guilty verdict. His behaviour matches up perfectly with that of a paedo who happened to be a multi millionaire music superstar. He can be both.

retro:electro · 06-03-2019 11:40PM

Motivator wrote: »

Whatever went on, the parents are at fault for all of it. Whoring out their kids so they could live the high life that was provided by that wierdo Jackson.

Really? So you absolve Michael of all responsibility for molesting children if they claims are indeed true?

The parents were stupid for sure and handed their children on a platter and should be criticised for that, but the one who is responsible for molesting them is the one who molested them.

Motivator · 06-03-2019 11:46PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Really? So you absolve Michael of all responsibility for molesting children if they claims are indeed true?

The parents were stupid for sure and handed their children on a platter and should be criticised for that, but the one who is responsible for molesting them is the one who molested them.

Im not defending him for a second. My point is that the parents left their kids with him for days on end to keep him happy so they could they stay on the gravy train paid for in full by Jackson.

Yes he was the one who did whatever he did to those children, but the money and fame hungry parents put their children in the position that they found themselves in. No 7 year old child should be be put in a situation where they are left alone with a clearly disturbed person for 5 days.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 06-03-2019 11:49PM

Sheeps wrote: »

Don't believe a word of it. Seems Michael Jackson is an easy target in the age of the "me too" movement to make a quick buck against the estate since he's not around to present a defence. No thanks. The alleged victims, in this case, have absolutely no credibility, and ill never forgive them for making me agree with Piers Morgan on the topic.

Michael Jackson was #metoo'd 30 years before #metoo.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments