Micky Jackson in trouble again

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 05:58PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

While they wouldn't disprove anything they would at least help establish the credibility and character of the accused as well as the credibility of the accuser, all vital in a court of law.

This is why a courtroom is the only proper place to decide guilt or innocence. The importance of a judge is he/she does not allow witnesses to make accusations or false statements without being called to account or cross examined. Its critical in proving guilt or innocence.

None of this happened in this documentary which is, its clear a good old fashioned character hatchet job with no right to reply. No wonder the judge threw out the case of one of them before trial.

The case was "thrown out" because the statute of limitations had passed. It was nothing to do with the credibility of the accusations

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 07-03-2019 06:00PM

correction wrote: »

I don't even think public opinion has swayed enough against him for banning his music to even be a conversation tbh.

Don't think enough people even care about the documentary. You've definitely got loud people who do but I think the majority have grown up with these questions hanging over him already so unless some real new unarguable evidence is presented, which it's fair to say this documentary failed to do, his legacy will remain mostly unchanged.

The official ratings weren’t that high in the US, I think. Not compared to the Bashir documentary of the early ‘00s. Though was that shown on network television as opposed to cable? I think a lot of people are fed up of the topic and have made up their minds on him already either way. I actually wouldn’t have watched or recorded last night’s installment myself left to my own devices. Hubs wanted to watch it.

joe40 · 07-03-2019 06:00PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

tigger123 wrote: »

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

Of course I wouldn't. Nothing about MJ was normal, nor it seems about the kids parents who let him share the bed.

Does it mean he raped them? Again, you'd need a bit more proof.

re the parents, at least one or two saw an opportunity and sadly used their kids as bait to get money out of Jackson either through financial help or suing him. Not all of them were like this but it seems clear some were.

Proof is not possible at this stage, but you're the one who tried to muddy the waters by comparing his behaviour to parents sharing a bed with their kids.
(As a parent of a 13 year old that would be creepy enough)
I don't know why you would try to normalise his behaviour in that way.

In terms of proof that would result in a conviction in court, that level of evidence does not exist nor will it at this stage, and the witnesses do have credibility issues. I accept all that.
For me personally though, even just re assessing what was already known, if as a adult and father is enough for me to reach the conclusion that Michael was not just a harmless "man child" but posed a potential danger.
We will never have proof if rape actually took place but people will form opinions and for me his legacy is severely damaged.
Even without the current doc, his behaviour when reexamined in the light of what is now known about child abuse and grooming is hard to accept.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 06:10PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The case was "thrown out" because the statute of limitations had passed. It was nothing to do with the credibility of the accusations

I made the point about the statute of limitations before. Its there to ensure cases can be tried while evidence is fresh, memories are fresh, and witnesses are still alive. The longer time passes the more difficult it becomes to have accurate evidence and witness accounts. Memories for one fade. One of the points about it is its there to protect people from false or made up allegations which a judge and jury can't accurately decide if they are true.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 06:13PM

joe40 wrote: »

Proof is not possible at this stage, but you're the one who tried to muddy the waters by comparing his behaviour to parents sharing a bed with their kids.
(As a parent of a 13 year old that would be creepy enough)
I don't know why you would try to normalise his behaviour in that way.

In terms of proof that would result in a conviction in court, that level of evidence does not exist nor will it at this stage, and the witnesses do have credibility issues. I accept all that.
For me personally though, even just re assessing what was already known, if as a adult and father is enough for me to reach the conclusion that Michael was not just a harmless "man child" but posed a potential danger.
We will never have proof if rape actually took place but people will form opinions and for me his legacy is severely damaged.
Even without the current doc, his behaviour when reexamined in the light of what is now known about child abuse and grooming is hard to accept.

I said its odd so stop putting words in my mouth. But odd behavior is proof of nothing, else we'd have to lock up every odd ball here and elsewhere purely for the crime of being odd.

Its not a criminal offence to be odd or eccentric. In fact some of the nicest most harmless people are odd and eccentric. And some of the nastiest psychopaths present themselves as upstanding pillars of society as we well know in this country. In fact it seems to be their MO to present themselves as normal.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 06:13PM

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on a second, by his own sworn deposition a few years ago he stated he didn't realize he had been molested or that it was "wrong" until at least 2010, this changed numerous times to later dates for "other" reasons.

So now he is saying he didn't defend him in 2005 because he was molested.

That's very interesting, thank you.

He says numerous times in this documentary that while he told his mother that Jackson "wasn't a good person" in 2005 and he wouldn't defend him, that was the extent of it. He was still in denial about the abuse and didn't delve into it further. It's fairly common behaviour among abuse victims.

The whole point of the movie is about how victims of grooming don't feel like they were abused. This is a thing. It's not as simple as saying "he didn't realise raping a child was wrong, yeah right" and concluding that he must be lying because of that. He obviously knew it was wrong on an objective level, but he had disassociated himself from the situation. They both say that it's only when they think of it happening to their own children that they can feel anger or disgust about it, even now. For liars they know an awful about how abuse victims might feel and act.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 06:16PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I made the point about the statute of limitations before. Its there to ensure cases can be tried while evidence is fresh, memories are fresh, and witnesses are still alive. The longer time passes the more difficult it becomes to have accurate evidence and witness accounts. Memories for one fade. One of the points about it is its there to protect people from false or made up allegations which a judge and jury can't accurately decide if they are true.

Yeah but you tried to insinuate that the judge "threw out" the case because the claims were made up. That didn't happen

Theboinkmaster · 07-03-2019 06:18PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The whole point of the movie is about how victims of grooming don't feel like they were abused.

No the whole point of the movie is to use Michael Jackson's name to make money and gain attention.

joe40 · 07-03-2019 06:20PM

A grown man sharing his bed with 13 year old boys is not simply "odd"

It is not the actions of some harmless eccentric. We will never know if abuse took place, but it is wrong to dismiss his behaviour as "odd"

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 06:24PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah but you tried to insinuate that the judge "threw out" the case because the claims were made up. That didn't happen

I will have to go back and find the post for where someone said it was thrown out. It was possibly a comment made by someone along the lines of the judge threw it out because he was an obvious liar. I will look later if that's ok?

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 06:25PM

joe40 wrote: »

A grown man sharing his bed with 13 year old boys is not simply "odd"

It is not the actions of some harmless eccentric. We will never know if abuse took place, but it is wrong to dismiss his behaviour as "odd"

You've already said its so long ago proof is no longer possible.

So we are left with accusations then. Accusations without proof wouldn't really stand up in court.

You agree the guy was eccentric? As in off the wall eccentric?

retro:electro · 07-03-2019 06:25PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I will have to go back and find the post for where someone said it was thrown out. It was possibly a comment made by someone along the lines of the judge threw it out because he was an obvious liar. I will look later if that's ok?

Yeah that was Boggles’ claim which was false.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 06:31PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He says numerous times in this documentary that while he told his mother that Jackson "wasn't a good person" in 2005 and he wouldn't defend him, that was the extent of it..

Which is it?

Boggles · 07-03-2019 06:32PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I will have to go back and find the post for where someone said it was thrown out. It was possibly a comment made by someone along the lines of the judge threw it out because he was an obvious liar. I will look later if that's ok?

I never said the judge threw it out because of that.

It was thrown on technicalities, the judge by his own free admission added that Robson was a complete liar.

AllForIt · 07-03-2019 06:40PM

Piers Morgan gave Dan Reed a good grilling in this interview. I think Morgans line of questioning reflects many of the doubts a lot of ppl have on the issue. Reed looks more and more awkward as the interview goes one and appears to be biting his tongue somewhat. On Prime Time the other day he said when asked about evidence (other than testimony) he retorted "he slept in the same bed as them - what do you think he was doing with them [in his bed]".

I find it interesting too that a British person made this doc. I do recall in the 80's before any allegations the British Tabloids where vicious towards 'Wacko Jacko" - a term that originated in The Sun.

joe40 · 07-03-2019 06:56PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

A grown man sharing his bed with 13 year old boys is not simply "odd"

It is not the actions of some harmless eccentric. We will never know if abuse took place, but it is wrong to dismiss his behaviour as "odd"

You've already said its so long ago proof is no longer possible.

So we are left with accusations then. Accusations without proof wouldn't really stand up in court.

You agree the guy was eccentric? As in off the wall eccentric?

In these type of historical abuse cases there is never proof, just evidence. The main evidence is the credibility of the accusers, which everyone has to form their own opinion on. Including juries in court cases. The irrefutable proof never exists.
Innocent until proven guilty is a vital part of our criminal justice system, and one I fully support, even if it means guilty people go free due to lack of evidence.
The court of public opinion is a more fickle place. Always has been always will be.
In my opinion of him as a person the evidence against Jackson is pretty damning. His behaviour posed a significant risk against children and with hindsight it is amazing it was accepted.
He was written off as a eccentric man child in the public eye and his behaviour was tolerated.
Even if nothing was ever proven in court this re appraisal of his life is damaging to his legacy.

mbur · 07-03-2019 07:05PM

Sam Smith was on the Day Darcy show this afternoon with the tale that he and Eamon Dunphy were in the Dublin Hotel where the "Bad" tour crew were staying. They wrote a "if you are here against your will, we can rescue you" note to Michael's 10 year old "companion" and had a staff member slip it under the appropriate door.. Nothing happened.

Very strange indeed for a ten year old to be on a tour like this. They obviously thought so. But the fact remains their suspicions are no proof that anything dubious was happening.

sligeach · 07-03-2019 07:13PM

Have people read this letter from the Michael Jackson Estate attorney, Howard Weitzman to Richard Plepler, Chief Executive Officer of HBO?

Michael Jackson Estate Letter of FACTS – Debunking “Leaving Neverland”

https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/

It's a very long letter, most sites just quote sections, but I suggest people read it, all of it, particularly those who think Michael is guilty, then try saying they believe the 2 accusers. Though the letter contains a lot, "the information discussed in this letter is just the tip of the iceberg on these two."

I was quoting some of it, but then removed it. It has to be read.

07-03-2019 08:01PM

sligeach wrote: »

Have people read this letter from the Michael Jackson Estate attorney, Howard Weitzman to Richard Plepler, Chief Executive Officer of HBO?

I was quoting some of it, but then removed it. It has to be read.

Like if you don't have a life "has to be read" maybe.. seriously?

I don't need to read all that guff to know that the documentary itself is just not good journalism - it's a "movie" made for commercial gain-not a documentary - good documentaries have some level of balance- this has none.

It's bad journalism and I don't think it does anything for further the pursuit of "truth". People can make their own minds up when watching it - I know I have.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 08:04PM

Boggles wrote: »

Which is it?

Jesus, both? They both mean the same thing. That's what he told his mother, obviously referring to the abuse. Me saying he didn't defend him because Michael abused him was me paraphrasing. I mean, he spent much of the first part describing that abuse. Im pretty sure that's what he meant when he said Michael wasn't a good person and his mother took it as an admission of abuse. But maybe he meant he wasn't a good person because he didn't rewind his videos or something and that's why he couldn't defend him.

I don't know why I keep getting drawn into this. You aren't going to change your mind.

I didn't know much about Robson before all this and i believe him. Even without the abuse, his family was torn apart because of Michael Jackson. I didn't know about any of that. Safechuck is clearly a very troubled individual and I believe him also. Everything they say rings true.

I'm sure if more people come forward you'll write them off similarly. I'm not sure I could so vigorously defend someone facing such horrible accusations on multiple occasions, and slate alleged abuse victims but whatever, you do you!

Boggles · 07-03-2019 08:21PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know why I keep getting drawn into this. You aren't going to change your mind.

Relax, I only asked you a question you directly contradicted yourself within 2 posts. I just asked for clarity.

As for changing my mind, I have no problem doing that, it will have to evidence based though.

I don't think that is a mental concept TBF.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 08:24PM

AllForIt wrote: »

Piers Morgan gave Dan Reed a good grilling in this interview. I think Morgans line of questioning reflects many of the doubts a lot of ppl have on the issue. Reed looks more and more awkward as the interview goes one and appears to be biting his tongue somewhat. On Prime Time the other day he said when asked about evidence (other than testimony) he retorted "he slept in the same bed as them - what do you think he was doing with them [in his bed]".

I find it interesting too that a British person made this doc. I do recall in the 80's before any allegations the British Tabloids where vicious towards 'Wacko Jacko" - a term that originated in The Sun.

Any judge would rule a statement like this inadmissible. A defence lawyer would object to it being speculation and conjecture which it is. Its the type of accusation that wouldn't be permitted in court for good reason.
Seems to me Reed has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner. Yet he's not qualified as a lawyer or judge.
Very little in this documentary would I imagine stand up in a court of law under robust cross examination.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 08:32PM

Boggles wrote: »

Relax, I only asked you a question you directly contradicted yourself within 2 posts. I just asked for clarity.

As for changing my mind, I have no problem doing that, it will have to evidence based though.

I don't think that is a mental concept TBF.

How did I contradict myself? Saying the same thing two different ways is not a contradiction. Safechuck told his mother not to defend him and he wouldn't either because "he wasn't a good person". That's all he was able to say to his mother at the time but even she knew what he meant. Now again, he might not have been referring to the abuse he had just detailed in graphic detail on camera making Jackson not a good person but I doubt it.

There will never be enough evidence for you if the many accusations, settlements and paedophilic behaviour over many years is not sufficient.

innuendo141 · 07-03-2019 08:38PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Any judge would rule a statement like this inadmissible. A defence lawyer would object to it being speculation and conjecture which it is. Its the type of accusation that wouldn't be permitted in court for good reason.
Seems to me Reed has set himself up as judge, jury and executioner. Yet he's not qualified as a lawyer or judge.
Very little in this documentary would I imagine stand up in a court of law under robust cross examination.

His interview with Piers Morgan confirms this.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 08:46PM

mbur wrote: »

Sam Smith was on the Day Darcy show this afternoon with the tale that he and Eamon Dunphy were in the Dublin Hotel where the "Bad" tour crew were staying. They wrote a "if you are here against your will, we can rescue you" note to Michael's 10 year old "companion" and had a staff member slip it under the appropriate door.. Nothing happened.

Very strange indeed for a ten year old to be on a tour like this. They obviously thought so. But the fact remains their suspicions are no proof that anything dubious was happening.

That's the thing, they weren't there against their will. They don't want to be rescued. It's something that a lot people can't understand. They were groomed and actually liked being with Jackson, even the sexual aspect, as wrong as we know it to be

joe40 · 07-03-2019 08:50PM

mbur wrote: »

Sam Smith was on the Day Darcy show this afternoon with the tale that he and Eamon Dunphy were in the Dublin Hotel where the "Bad" tour crew were staying. They wrote a "if you are here against your will, we can rescue you" note to Michael's 10 year old "companion" and had a staff member slip it under the appropriate door.. Nothing happened.

Very strange indeed for a ten year old to be on a tour like this. They obviously thought so. But the fact remains their suspicions are no proof that anything dubious was happening.

Yeah I remember those days we used to joke about Michael Jackson and child abuse.
It was easier for people/fans to write him off as "wacko jacko" rather than seriously question his behaviour.
His music was great, and many people were committed fans so it was easier that way.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 08:54PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

How did I contradict myself?

You said in one post he specifically told his mother he was sexually abused in 2005 and the next one you said he didn't, he just told her Jackson was bad.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 08:55PM

I think in the interests of balance (something badly missing) Jackson was friends with a lot of people who ranged from elderly or middle aged (Liz Taylor, Diana Ross, etc) right down to kids. So he wasn't just friends with kids, he was friends with people of all ages. Its being portrayed that he spent his entire life hanging around kids or something like that. He spent time with kids, he spent time with adults. That needs to be said. He spent time with a lot of people, but commentators only want to focus on the fact he spent time with kids and ignore practically everything else. Balance is important.

ceadaoin. · 07-03-2019 09:01PM

Boggles wrote: »

You said in one post he specifically told his mother he was sexually abused in 2005 and the next one you said he didn't, he just told her Jackson was bad.

Well that's what he said and she took it as him saying he was sexually abused. I can't remember exactly but she may have asked him and he said yes but he didn't want to talk about it. Either way, she understood that he had been abused and the audience understood that that's why he didn't defend him. Talk about pedantic

Mr.Wemmick · 07-03-2019 09:05PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That's the thing, they weren't there against their will. They don't want to be rescued. It's something that a lot people can't understand. They were groomed and actually liked being with Jackson, even the sexual aspect, as wrong as we know it to be

Agreed. Ask any social worker worth their salt what it is like to take damaged children away from abusive parents, the kids don't want to go.. they kick and scream, do not want to be separated. The healing process takes a very long time.

I once worked in a primary school in the UK where a Dad who sexually abused his kids would arrive at the school fence to try to see and talk to his daughters. The young girls, who were in care, were so happy to see him the couple of times he managed to get their attention. Being a young teacher, I didn't understand it at all and was very shock by it.. now that I am older, I understand perfectly.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments