Micky Jackson in trouble again

CFlat · 07-03-2019 02:08AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No legal system gets it right all the time

Oh come on they had nearly two decades. When was the first case, early 90s?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 07-03-2019 02:10AM

sligeach wrote: »

You're an obvious MJ hater, it comes across so transparently in your comments. He didn't die because he was a drug addict. He died because Conrad Murray f*cked up. There you go again, "fact"? It's not a fact. He was found not guilty in 2005, which brought up the allegations of 1993. And in 1993, 2 grand juries said there was no case to answer for.

So you've got these 2 proven liars in this completely one-sided assassination of a defenseless dead man. There's plenty of evidence to say they're lying. I'd love to see these 2 take a polygraph test. They've provided no evidence, just a concocted story which is easy to do. And they've got literally hundreds of millions of reasons to make it up, the more graphic the story and the more it went on, the bigger they're hoping they get as a payout in compensation.

They've lodged an appeal against the previous decision by the judge to throw the case out, the judge said that Wade Robson had lied in his witness statement to such an extent that 'no rational fact-finder' could believe his account.

Just on this. There are questions about Robson because of his involvement in the 2005 trial but are there any about Safechuck? You say it’s proven that he is lying. Has it been proven? Remember, evidence and proof are different. Proof is conclusive.

To say he is a proven liar is quite a big statement.

BorneTobyWilde · 07-03-2019 02:10AM

One thing about this documentary is they used certain terms and time frames to suit their story, like when Michael got married.
They said he called them and said he was going to get married to paint a picture to the world of a normal straight man. They used his marriage as a time frame and claimed he married to cover his tracks and claimed he told them'' don't worry about it, it's all for show'' that his marriage was all about them, yea right.

They used term # applehead'' knowing Paris has that tattooed on her leg. It's like building a lie around known facts. There is a lot of bitterness on Wade part towards the Jacksons, I know if Michael was alive none of this would be happening.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 02:10AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No legal system gets it right all the time. That’s impossible. We all know of a high profile ‘90s murder case that ably demonstrates that. I find the above argument uncompelling. That ‘90s case also showed us what money and connections can do.

The question of why people speak out about MJ always comes down to “For the money, obvs”. I gotta say, for me, no amount of money would make it worth being hated by millions and millions of people. There is a not inconsiderable strand of MJ fans who are really rabid and I can’t imagine anyone wanting to draw their attention. I don’t think any amount of money would be worth that grief, would it? Who would want that hassle?

I've said it on this thread already, but the real people who are "in it for the money" are the family and estate. They are the ones who have a vested interest in denying reality, and don't want to jeopardize their cash cow. I'm sure they know the truth. His crazed fans are just delusional. These men and their families have received death threats because of this. Yeah, I'm sure they're loving the attention

retro:electro · 07-03-2019 02:11AM

He wasn’t a pedo he was a child trapped in a man’s body

He didn’t settle against allegations of molestation his insurance paid out against his knowledge

He wasn’t abusing drugs he died because his doctor messed up Michael had no idea

He’s not to blame for the kids being in his bed the parents were forcing them on him

The money was just resting in his account

:pac:
I mean Jaysus

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 02:12AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

One thing about this documentary is they used certain terms and time frames to suit their story, like when Michael got married.
They said he called them and said he was going to get married to paint a picture to the world of a normal straight man. They used his marriage as a time frame and claimed he married to cover his tracks and claimed he told them'' don't worry about it, it's all for show'' that his marriage was all about them, yea right.

They used term # applehead'' knowing Paris has that tattooed on her leg. It's like building a lie around known facts. There is a lot of bitterness on Wade part towards the Jacksons, I know if Michael was alive none of this would be happening.

There's a recording of a voicemail from Jackson to Wade (maybe in part two?) where he uses the term Apple head. It's obviously something he did say and not them saying it retrospectively

retro:electro · 07-03-2019 02:13AM

fin12 wrote: »

That 90s case was f*cked up by the police, who tampered with evidence when they didn’t need to. OJ then pulled out the old racism cardand that’s how he got off. Found guilty in the civil case.

Bit like you earlier on calling Oprah a racist

SharpshooterTom · 07-03-2019 02:14AM

Given he's arguably in the top 3 greatest artists ever (along with The Beatles and Elvis), I'd be shocked if there was a total ban on his music.

Michael Jackons songs will still be popular in 30+ years time. I don't know if its possible tbh. Even following Martin Bashir's documentary, which at the time killed his career, didn't ban his music.

fin12 · 07-03-2019 02:15AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I've said it on this thread already, but the real people who are "in it for the money" are the family and estate. They are the ones who have a vested interest in denying reality, and don't want to jeopardize their cash cow. I'm sure they know the truth. His crazed fans are just delusional. These men and their families have received death threats because of this. Yeah, I'm sure they're loving the attention :eyeroll:

Oh please well if you don’t want any attention don’t make a bloody documentary and go and do an interview with opera Winfrey.

I saw they are very happy it’s making headlines all over the world. Too cowardly to do it while he was alive.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 07-03-2019 02:15AM

CFlat wrote: »

Oh come on they had nearly two decades. When was the first case, early 90s?

What does the length of time matter? Sexual crimes are notoriously difficult to prove. Your faith in the American justice system is touching but IMO misplaced. We have that seminal ‘90s case. In recent times, we have ‘Making A Murderer’ which, even with its considerable flaws and omissions, undoubtedly showed up troubling issues with the US criminal justice system.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 02:17AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Just on this. There are questions about Robson because of his involvement in the 2005 trial but are there any about Safechuck? You say it’s proven that he is lying. Has it been proven? Remember, evidence and proof are different. Proof is conclusive.

To say he is a proven liar is quite a big statement.

Safechuck testified on Michael's behalf in the earlier trial in the 90s. He was still a kid at this time and still wanted to be in Jackson's good graces. I don't think that can be held against him given the fact he was groomed. He told jackson to **** off when he came calling in 2005

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 07-03-2019 02:27AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Safechuck testified on Michael's behalf in the earlier trial in the 90s. He was still a kid at this time and still wanted to be in Jackson's good graces. I don't think that can be held against him given the fact he was groomed. He told jackson to **** off when he came calling in 2005

That’s what people are going by? :eek:

This thread and others have reminded me why there is no. point. in talking about this with the more obsessive MJ fans. It’s positively cultish.

I mean, I’m somebody has enjoyed his music in the past (bit sick of it now because of overplaying of it). I have no reason to have it in for him at all. I just look at the sum total of everything I’ve heard on this topic and I judge it like a civil case. On balance, what do I believe?

One last point - I believe the celebs who say he never did anything to them as children. I do believe them. But I find that uncompelling. It’s no surprise if he did nothing to the very famous kid who has power and connections and showbiz-savvy parents.

Mongfinder General · 07-03-2019 02:40AM

Anybody defending him is a fool. The question I'd ask anybody who defends him and has kids is: if he was alive today, would you allow your kids spend the weekend with him in Neverland?

Would they fcuk.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 03:02AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s what people are going by? :eek:

This thread and others have reminded me why there is no. point. in talking about this with the more obsessive MJ fans. It’s positively cultish.

I mean, I’m somebody has enjoyed his music in the past (bit sick of it now because of overplaying of it). I have no reason to have it in for him at all. I just look at the sum total of everything I’ve heard on this topic and I judge it like a civil case. On balance, what do I believe?

One last point - I believe the celebs who say he never did anything to them as children. I do believe them. But I find that uncompelling. It’s no surprise if he did nothing to the very famous kid who has power and connections and showbiz-savvy parents.

I don't know how anyone can watch Safechucks story in this film and not see a man in incredible pain and anguish. I mean, it's kind of hard to fake that. But no, he testified for Jackson nearly 30 years ago while still a child who had been subjected to years of abuse and grooming. That's enough to write him off as a liar. Well not for me it isn't, and thankfully most normal people seem to agree. Those people still defending Jackson need to have a look at themselves ffs. They wouldn't do it for anyone else (hopefully!)

Jimbob1977 · 07-03-2019 08:31AM

fin12 wrote: »

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.

My point is that he can't defend himself against the current allegations now. They are uncorroborated.

He is innocent in the eyes of the law. In the 'court of public opinion', he is "dodgy".

These days, the court of public opinion holds a lot of sway.

Jussie Smollett's allegations about getting beaten up by two white Trump supporters in MAGA hats, while using racist and homophobic slurs, was taken as gospel truth by the media and talk show hosts.

The reality.... He hired two Nigerians to stage it. He was unhappy with his salary as a successful actor. Thought he could get sympathy and a better deal.

Call me Al · 07-03-2019 08:49AM

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

My point is that he can't defend himself against the current allegations now. They are uncorroborated.

He is innocent in the eyes of the law. In the 'court of public opinion', he is "dodgy".

These days, the court of public opinion holds a lot of sway.

Jussie Smollett's allegations about getting beaten up by two white Trump supporters in MAGA hats, while using racist and homophobic slurs, was taken as gospel truth by the media and talk show hosts.

The reality.... He hired two Nigerians to stage it. He was unhappy with his salary as a successful actor. Thought he could get sympathy and a better deal.

He slept with pre-pubescent children. Regularly. Something he admitted.
He constantly surrounded himself with other people's children. And slept with them. He didn't have a girlfriend or boyfriend.
If you saw a grown man doing that would you honestly think he was a man in a child's body? Or think he had an unhealthy interest in children.

Jessie Smollett has nothing to do with anything in this case.

Hannibal_Smith · 07-03-2019 08:53AM

I dunno...i was torn before it. Mainly because you can't just dismiss the claims because Jackson is famous or you like his music. Thats exactly why people dont speak out, fear of not being believed especially if the adult is some one high in society.

I dont get why Jacskon is getting such blind support on this.

But jaysus did Robsons parents seriously leave their kid with Jackson for 5 days after 'knowing' him for 4 days! :mad:

Safechuck seemed very believable. Its quite possible he was haming it up for the camera. But he seemed quite sincere.

I dont get how they can get compensation from the estate though? Can you make a claim against a dead person, with no one to defend the claim?

If he did do it...fair play to them for speaking out especially with the public reaction as it is.

But no one can possibly make a call either way and in those circumstances do you really just side with famous person?

Sleeper12 · 07-03-2019 09:06AM

https://www.facebook.com/zara.murphy.50/videos/10156146995772828/UzpfSTc1NDIwODI3NzoxMDE1NzI0MDAyNTEzODI3OA/

8-10 · 07-03-2019 09:12AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

.

I dont get how they can get compensation from the estate though? Can you make a claim against a dead person, with no one to defend the claim?

No, he can't be sued. That's why Wade Robson's accusations aren't against Jackson, they're against MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, 2 of his companies.

He left it too long to file against his estate I believe. Because of this, he changed his story to accuse the companies and rather than saying he was groomed by Michael, he had to allege that it was the companies and Norma Staikos his PA and Chief of Staff in relation to the companies who intentionally recruited him for the purposes of Jackson abusing him.

His allegations are specifically that Norma acted as a pimp or "madame" on behalf of Jackson to procure children like Wade for sex and he described his company as "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization(s) the world has known" who brought him to the USA "for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse".

If his allegations are against Michael as acting alone, he gets no compensation. But seems like he puts all the blame on his companies and Norma instead which allows him to sue, but curiously this isn't really the narrative that he gives in the documentary. Interesting

Hannibal_Smith · 07-03-2019 09:16AM

Wow....thanks for that 8-10. I missed the end of it last night...but from what i watched...i hadn't seen anything that might suggest something was being worked on against the company

8-10 · 07-03-2019 09:19AM

I also forgot to add that Wade's own mother....who does support him it has to be noted, contradicts Wade's version of events. There is substantial evidence that she herself contacted Norma and MJJ Productions multiple times when trying to get Wade a job as a dancer with Jackson. The contrary narrative that Jackson instructed his company to seek out Wade in Australia and employ him for the purposes of giving Jackson access for abuse doesn't have any evidence that I have heard or seen

lee_baby_simms · 07-03-2019 09:20AM

I watched part 2 last night. If no abuse occurred then its one of the greatest pieces of acting I've ever seen.

The wives and family members are either in on the lie or Safechuck and Robson independently fabricated all the psychological damage that rises from abuse over the course of years.

Neither of the above seem plausible to me.

Hannibal_Smith · 07-03-2019 09:22AM

8-10 wrote: »

I also forgot to add that Wade's own mother....who does support him it has to be noted, contradicts Wade's version of events. There is substantial evidence that she herself contacted Norma and MJJ Productions multiple times when trying to get Wade a job as a dancer with Jackson. The contrary narrative that Jackson instructed his company to seek out Wade in Australia and employ him for the purposes of giving Jackson access for abuse doesn't have any evidence that I have heard or seen

I was just editting my post to say something similar when i saw this.

With Robson, the mother said she tracked Jackson down when they came to the States. I couldnt remember what Safechuck said.

Hannibal_Smith · 07-03-2019 09:25AM

Surely the rings are worth a few bob...he could always sell them.

super_furry · 07-03-2019 09:38AM

CFlat wrote: »

If the justice system in America, which is well known to be efficient and ruthless and takes no prisoners, no matter who you are, couldn't prove that Jackson was being inappropriate with children when he was alive, I can't get my head around why people think he is now. Is it just because a couple of lads who look well and speak well say he is?

Don't be fooled by very smart legal counsel who are sniffing around very large sums of money. These lads have been trained within an inch of their lives to put their own interpretation of what happened when they were with Jackson.

Don't believe any of it, not for a second.

Yeah and how did that work out for the victims in the OJ Simpson murder case? Throw enough money at a legal problem in America and it goes away.

It's mad the mental gymnastics that people go through to convince themselves that a man in his 30s sleeping with children wasn't up to anything illegal, despite all the accusations, arrests and pay-offs.

8-10 · 07-03-2019 09:42AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I was just editting my post to say something similar when i saw this.

With Robson, the mother said she tracked Jackson down whenbtgey came to the States. I couldnt remember what Safechuck said.

The lawsuit was dismissed last year anyway but I think they're still appealing.

I don't know enough about the Safechuck allegations to form an opinion yet but I have definite red flags when it comes to Robson.

If anybody is interested in the earlier court cases there is a podcast episode that I think goes into good detail while keeping it at a conversational level.

This is more from the innocent side, but at the same time even though both of the speakers show bias towards him being innocent in those cases, they both admit to the potential of the 1993 allegations having some basis in truth (I think they dismiss 2005). Overall they condemn his behaviour and have no explanation for it but try to assess the circumstances around each allegation and court case. They only mention Wade Robson briefly in terms of the context of his testimony in 2005 and I think they reference his change in story since but don't touch much on it, it's mainly the 93 and 2005 cases.

If you have an open mind and are interested in the previous cases I think it's good to hear what you might consider a different point of view. It's not comprehensive so I did a lot of offline reading on the cases to understand more and assess the statements made in the podcast but overall I believe they did a good job in stating the facts and my conclusion is similar in that I believe it's possible something did happen because of his behaviour and the situations he put himself in with young children, but I don't believe either of these cases.

Touches on a lot of the highlights that people have an opinion on from those cases: sleeping arrangements, access to porn, giving children alcohol, why first case was settled, Bashir documentary, etc etc

Podcast is "Reason Bound" and episode is called "Pirates in Neverland". It's on iTunes, pocket casts etc. but I'll link to the YouTube one below. It's a full 3hrs long but it's worth a listen I think to give a fuller picture of the context of the previous allegations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J1JQaIrxRU

suicide_circus · 07-03-2019 10:04AM

he was cleared in court and now he's dead. thats an end of it really.

however, would i let any child of mine near him? no way.

short of a video of him molesting kids being found some day, we'll never know.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 10:06AM

This is a picture of Michael Jackson and James Safechuck. Can anyone seriously say they can look at this and not feel uncomfortable, given the allegations? I felt uncomfortable before I even knew that this was one of his accusers. There are many more photos of Jackson acting similarly with Safechuck and many other boys, its disturbing to say the least

fryup · 07-03-2019 10:07AM

last night was a very difficult watch, stomach churning in parts......but, i believe them

the anguish in their faces, the nervous emotion in their voices...i believe they were genuine

MJ legacy is in tatters after this, i wonder will his music be played on radio again?

LolaJJ · 07-03-2019 10:09AM

I've only seen the first part of this doc, last night, along with the rest of the world I'm sure.

Pretty indifferent to Jackson going in, always felt there is no smoke without fire and expected to be fully convinced he was guilty going in. Coming out of it, I was less convinced than I presumed I'd be - the hype surrounding this doc has been slightly insane.

I am disappointed they didn't include stories from now adult children who claim he didn't abuse them. I feel it lacked balance on that front but I understand the producers are telling the abuse story/allegations.

I don't feel confident assuming he is guilty, I'd like to know more about how well Safechuck and Robson became acquainted prior to filming and if there was an opportunity for them to compare notes, so to speak.

My one takeaway from it was how insanely naive and strange both mothers were. I appreciate he was a big-star but surely as mothers, they should have had some kind of instinct or feeling that this was inappropriate behavior. Part of me wondered if they turned a blind eye.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments