Micky Jackson in trouble again

topnotch · 08-03-2019 01:25AM

Watching back the RTE report of the Cork concert on youtube i was amazed how the phrase wacko jacko was the first thing Charlie bird said, it was even on the sign for the camp site. I remember him being called wacko jacko but i never thought it was said so publically.

Sheeps · 08-03-2019 01:29AM

I'm still amazed that people can't see the lack of objectivity in this documentary, or the issue with telling only a single side of the story. Like, we're 22 days away from Brexit, and Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and people are still trying to shame people for being sceptical.

sligeach · 08-03-2019 01:36AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

To the apologists, you think the man slept in bed with pre-teen boys, on a consistent basis, and it was all innocent? Open your eyes for fks sake.

Also how is it that Jordy Chandler was able to accurately describe Jackson's genitals if nothing happened? Funny that the cheque book came out once there was credible evidence. You would think someone accused of something as horrific as paedophilia would want to clear their name if they were innocent.

The man was a monster. I'm sorry if that disturbs your idealised version of him, but he was what he was.

You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. He didn't describe them accurately. This is the sort of BS that clueless people spout on the internet. Watch from about 50 minutes to 53:30, he'll explain it to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDa27x6mTWs

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pDa27x6mTWs

The whole video is great. This guy knows what he’s talking about, unlike others.

08-03-2019 01:36AM

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm still amazed that people can't see the lack of objectivity in this documentary, or the issue with telling only a single side of the story. Like, we're 22 days away from Brexit, and Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and people are still trying to shame people for being sceptical.

I'm amazed people can't see the bleedin obvious. He slept with small boys and subbed them out once they got past puberty. These 'sleepovers' are well documented.

If you found out your middle aged neighbour had young boys sleeping over in his bed every night of the week, calling them his best friends, would you think that was ok?

sligeach · 08-03-2019 01:49AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Oooh thats a great read

It's unreal and it shows the lengths that they're willing to go to to try and get money from the Estate. But you don't hear the media talking about this. It's so crazy, I'm going to embed the images direct, in case some didn’t click on them and some can't read Tweets as they may be in work.

Kimbot · 08-03-2019 01:50AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

I'm amazed people can't see the bleedin obvious. He slept with small boys and subbed them out once they got past puberty. These 'sleepovers' are well documented.

Wade was 7 when he was knocking about with mj, and according to him 12 months later he was "subbed out" so not past puberty really.

The link earlier from the Jackson estate is a good read.

Pete Moss · 08-03-2019 01:52AM

Anyone else notice Jackson's lawyer is the image of Jimmy Saville?

08-03-2019 02:11AM

sligeach wrote: »

The whole video is great. This guy knows what he’s talking about, unlike others.

Why do you believe this guy, but not Carl Douglas or Bill Dworin?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mjfacts.com/300lb-gorilla/amp/

Look, I grew up with Michael Jackson and loved his music. I get that it's hard to accept that someone you admire was such an appalling person, so its easier to deny. But it does his victims, and all abuse victims who are afraid to speak out, a huge disservice.

BorneTobyWilde · 08-03-2019 02:16AM

'Cause there's a time when you're right
And you know you must fight
Who's laughing baby??? don't you know!!!
And there's the choice that we make
And this choice you will take
Who's laughin' baby?
So just leave me alone!!!!!!!!

Don't come beggin' me
Don't come beggin'
Don't come lovin' me
Don't come beggin !!!!
I love you
But I don't want it
I don't, I don't, I don't want it !
Do just leave me alone !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crbFmpezO4A

ceadaoin. · 08-03-2019 02:21AM

Kimbot wrote: »

Wade was 7 when he was knocking about with mj, and according to him 12 months later he was "subbed out" so not past puberty really.

The link earlier from the Jackson estate is a good read.

The sexual contact continued for years. It was when he was 14 that the attempted anal penetration happened. He may not have been his primary "relationship" but the contact was still there

end of the road · 08-03-2019 03:10AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

To the apologists, you think the man slept in bed with pre-teen boys, on a consistent basis, and it was all innocent? Open your eyes for fks sake.

which "apologists" . i don't see any "apologists" here. i do see people who believe that a documentary making claims is not enough to prove the claims as accurate, or jackson's guilt.
everyone, from jackson fans right through, has said that regardless of intention, jackson should not, under any circumstances, have been sleeping in a bed with children. whether his intentions were innocent or not doesn't ultimately matter as far as everyone is concerned.

Flying Fox wrote: »

Also how is it that Jordy Chandler was able to accurately describe Jackson's genitals if nothing happened? Funny that the cheque book came out once there was credible evidence. You would think someone accused of something as horrific as paedophilia would want to clear their name if they were innocent.The man was a monster. I'm sorry if that disturbs your idealised version of him, but he was what he was.

he was what he was yes . however if he was indeed an actual monster rather then simply an oddball, then we would surely have quite an amount of evidence to prove it. yet we don't seem to. we just have evidence that he was an oddball who engaged in the unacceptible behaviour of sleeping in bed with children, something which has been condemned from jackson fans to the extreme opposite, as it rightly should be as it in itself is very serious behaviour, as i said, regardless of intention.

Flying Fox wrote: »

Why do you believe this guy, but not Carl Douglas or Bill Dworin?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mjfacts.com/300lb-gorilla/amp/

Look, I grew up with Michael Jackson and loved his music. I get that it's hard to accept that someone you admire was such an appalling person, so its easier to deny. But it does his victims, and all abuse victims who are afraid to speak out, a huge disservice.

the thing is, a number of people on here who are critical of the documentary and the 2 guys involved in it, are not jackson fans at all. they probably range from people who like a few of his songs to those who don't like his music or possibly even him full stop. not everyone has skin in the game as they say. one doesn't need to be a jackson fan to question the allegations made against him throughout his life, or be critical of some of the individuals who have made them, where information has come to light which may cause genuine doubt as to the credibility of said individuals.

ceadaoin. · 08-03-2019 08:07AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

One of the detectives who worked on the case confirmed it. He also confirmed they found images of young boys in his house.

Let's revisit what one of Jackson's lawyers said about the genital description thing and the subsequent photos

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side,

The accuser accurately described Jackson's genitals, and they knew it.

end of the road wrote: »

which "apologists" . i don't see any "apologists" here. i do see people who believe that a documentary making claims is not enough to prove the claims as accurate, or jackson's guilt.
everyone, from jackson fans right through, has said that regardless of intention, jackson should not, under any circumstances, have been sleeping in a bed with children. whether his intentions were innocent or not doesn't ultimately matter as far as everyone is concerned.

he was what he was yes . however if he was indeed an actual monster rather then simply an oddball, then we would surely have quite an amount of evidence to prove it. yet we don't seem to. we just have evidence that he was an oddball who engaged in the unacceptible behaviour of sleeping in bed with children, something which has been condemned from jackson fans to the extreme opposite, as it rightly should be as it in itself is very serious behaviour, as i said, regardless of intention.

the thing is, a number of people on here who are critical of the documentary and the 2 guys involved in it, are not jackson fans at all. they probably range from people who like a few of his songs to those who don't like his music or possibly even him full stop. not everyone has skin in the game as they say. one doesn't need to be a jackson fan to question the allegations made against him throughout his life, or be critical of some of the individuals who have made them, where information has come to light which may cause genuine doubt as to the credibility of said individuals.

No there's no literal evidence. Aside from the several people who have accused him and all the other circumstancial stuff that suggests he was a paedophile. Unlike any other case of this nature, victim testimony means nothing here. Why? What would be enough proof for you?

There is no "proper" way for an abuse victim to behave. What we know is that they display many common behaviors. I can guarantee that anyone who has experienced this type of abuse either directly, through a family member or in a professional capacity can see that these men display such behaviours

Hannibal_Smith · 08-03-2019 08:14AM

retro:electro wrote: »

And after reading this thread, you wouldn’t blame them. Everything about their experiences, what they said and didn’t say, who they told and didn’t tell used against them for fodder, relentless judgement and mockery.

Wade would want to be one absoluely sick individual to put all of this on his family if untrue. It has absoluely ruined his mother. Why would he do this if untrue? Some things in life are worth more than money. The health, sanity and solidity of your family number one.

As for Safechuck, I find him absoluely compelling. If that’s “close minded” or “embarrassing” then so be it. I am not perfect and neither is anyone here on this thread, but I would rather be whatever the hell I am than a defender and mocker of what in my eyes is obvious grooming, master manipulation and paedophilia.

But they have their family supporting and believing them?

Someone mentioned their relatiobship with their mothers suffered...their mothers handed their kids to Michael on a plate. Id be fairly peed off with my mother too.

JohnCreedon81 · 08-03-2019 08:29AM

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm still amazed that people can't see the lack of objectivity in this documentary, or the issue with telling only a single side of the story. Like, we're 22 days away from Brexit, and Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and people are still trying to shame people for being sceptical.

Exactly. And not just shame, some lunatics are painting anyone that disagrees with them as “paedo and nonce defenders” which is fvcking disgusting.

Yes abused people should be encouraged to come forward, but in a world of false accusations becoming hugely common, the very least people should do in cases like this is give a simple objective look at the evidence and the accusers too. These 2 are suspect to say the least. Even if Wacko was a paedo there’s every chance these 2 are complete bullsh!t artists.

Yet anyone here who questions them legitimately (they defended him, in court, as adults!) is being labeled a paedo defender. Fvcking mental.

micks_address · 08-03-2019 08:41AM

Haven't watched part 2 yet. Do they suggest why at the subsequent trial they defended Jackson? Were they paid off? Why do the others deny contact ever happened? What would they have to loose by admitting it now? Apart from maybe embarrassment?

Hannibal_Smith · 08-03-2019 08:52AM

micks_address wrote: »

Haven't watched part 2 yet. Do they suggest why at the subsequent trial they defended Jackson? Were they paid off? Why do the others deny contact ever happened? What would they have to loose by admitting it now? Apart from maybe embarrassment?

They said They werent ready to talk. Even though after the jordan chandler accusations when they defended him that time Robson says Jackson took him off to a hotel room that night...in the full knowledge of his mother...and molested him. Even after that, they said nothing.

Safechuck was asked to defend him the second time but he said no. He said Jackson isnt a good guy.

That bit i found hard to believe, they had two chances to get out and they stood by him. If you think no one is going to believe you grand, but that would make 4 kids in total speaking out...that would mean him behind bars and shutting up the Jackson 'only in it for the money' mantra.

SoundsRight · 08-03-2019 08:54AM

micks_address wrote: »

Haven't watched part 2 yet. Do they suggest why at the subsequent trial they defended Jackson? Were they paid off? Why do the others deny contact ever happened? What would they have to loose by admitting it now? Apart from maybe embarrassment?

I gather that he still felt an attachment to MJ. He didn't want to be the one to send him to jail, to be vilified and hounded for the rest of his life. He didn't reckon MJ would last long in prison. That's a measure of the hold he had over his victims.

LuckyLloyd · 08-03-2019 08:56AM

Sheeps wrote: »

I'm still amazed that people can't see the lack of objectivity in this documentary, or the issue with telling only a single side of the story. Like, we're 22 days away from Brexit, and Donald Trump is the president of the United States, and people are still trying to shame people for being sceptical.

He was a grown man regularly sharing a bed with young boys as part of creepy obsessional “friendships” and a range of these boys say he abused them.

This thread is like Ireland in the 70’s or something. You know damn well he was a grooming paedophilic monster. The devout religious devotion to Jackson is bizarre. It’s terrifying.

08-03-2019 09:05AM

Its not ok to sleep with little boys. Its just not... regardless of any issues you might have.
I don't know what the law states, but sleeping with kids that you are not parent / guardian of, should be a crime.

Shame on Michael and the parents of those kids.

How anybody can blame those people for being put in that situation is beyond me.

Necro · 08-03-2019 09:07AM

I mean it's hard not to look at Jackson and see accurate comparisons to Saville.

Both were extremely odd characters who had an obsession of being around young children.

Now we know Saville was a sick twisted monster who used his position to abuse and destroy the lives of many, many children. So logic tells ME (I don't frankly care what anyone else, MJ disciple or not) that Jackson did exactly the same.

People will bring up court cases and 'where's the hard proof, the evidence' and it frankly doesn't matter.

If you think it's normal behaviour for a grown man to share a bed with 7 year old children that are not biologically related to him then that's your prerogative. And that is BEFORE any further allegations are even discussed.

My own opinion is that Jackson was a warped human being, likely every bit as sick and twisted as Saville.

Hannibal_Smith · 08-03-2019 09:15AM

SoundsRight wrote: »

I gather that he still felt an attachment to MJ. He didn't want to be the one to send him to jail, to be vilified and hounded for the rest of his life. He didn't reckon MJ would last long in prison. That's a measure of the hold he had over his victims.

If it is true...i think the opposite...i think they viewed themselves as his saviour.

He also bought a house for the Safechucks with a low interest mortgage. So maybe they thought they'd be homeless.

But the mothers still let them stay over in his room!!

Sheeps · 08-03-2019 09:15AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He was a grown man regularly sharing a bed with young boys as part of creepy obsessional “friendships” and a range of these boys say he abused them.

This thread is like Ireland in the 70’s or something. You know damn well he was a grooming paedophilic monster. The devout religious devotion to Jackson is bizarre. It’s terrifying.

The thing you find terrifying is objectivity. If you haven't noticed I'm not making any assertions about sharing a bed with children. My point is about trial by media and how the people asserting Jackson's guilt are just as bad as those asserting blind innocence.

ebbsy · 08-03-2019 09:19AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

ebbsy wrote: »

Those 2 men looked like they had been coached very well in the way they delivered their so called truths.

Wonder how much they got paid ???

They didn't get paid for the documentary. The director has been clear about this

Well then the director is a liar as well.

DavidLyons_ · 08-03-2019 09:20AM

retro:electro wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Some people are so afraid of this...they never say anything.

And after reading this thread, you wouldn’t blame them. Everything about their experiences, what they said and didn’t say, who they told and didn’t tell used against them for fodder, relentless judgement and mockery.

Wade would want to be one absoluely sick individual to put all of this on his family if untrue. It has absoluely ruined his mother. Why would he do this if untrue? Some things in life are worth more than money. The health, sanity and solidity of your family number one.

As for Safechuck, I find him absoluely compelling. If that’s “close minded” or “embarrassing” then so be it. I am not perfect and neither is anyone here on this thread, but I would rather be whatever the hell I am than a defender and mocker of what in my eyes is obvious grooming, master manipulation and paedophilia.

Great post.

Wade Robson is a fame and money hungry wretch. Jackson was still a disgusting beast though - no matter how talented he may have been.

And his fans and defenders are rabid nut jobs who are paedophile apologists.

Hollywood, celebrity and the fame game. Populated by the utter dregs of humanity.

Hannibal_Smith · 08-03-2019 09:22AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

He was a grown man regularly sharing a bed with young boys as part of creepy obsessional “friendships” and a range of these boys say he abused them.

This thread is like Ireland in the 70’s or something. You know damn well he was a grooming paedophilic monster. The devout religious devotion to Jackson is bizarre. It’s terrifying.

Terrifying is a bit dramatic. What are you afraid of?

I wonder whether the other two boys are like f*ck you pair, you didnt stand up for us...now you can sweat

8-10 · 08-03-2019 10:07AM

Necro wrote: »

If you think it's normal behaviour for a grown man to share a bed with 7 year old children that are not biologically related to him then that's your prerogative.

It's also not what anybody here or elsewhere is saying.

I'm amazed that we need to go over this again and again in this thread, but literally nobody has said that this is normal behaviour.

JohnCreedon81 · 08-03-2019 10:12AM

8-10 wrote: »

It's also not what anybody here or elsewhere is saying.

I'm amazed that we need to go over this again and again in this thread, but literally nobody has said that this is normal behaviour.

It’s amazing isn’t it. Some seriously mentally challenged people tuning in here.

Not one single person is saying him sharing a bed with kids is OK. I’d go as far as saying he should have been prosecuted just for that, and given a barring order for having any kids stay at his house.

That’s not the point of this thread though, or the questioning of the latest documentary, and the seemingly closed case in some posters’ minds that he sexually abused loads of kids when that fact still has not been proven.

Necro · 08-03-2019 10:16AM

JohnCreedon81 wrote:

Itâ€™s amazing isnâ€™t it. Some seriously mentally challenged people tuning in here.

U ok hun? Xoxo

JohnCreedon81 · 08-03-2019 10:17AM

Necro wrote: »

U ok hun? Xoxo

Fine thanks bbz, you? Xoxo

joe40 · 08-03-2019 10:18AM

Sheeps wrote: »

The thing you find terrifying is objectivity. If you haven't noticed I'm not making any assertions about sharing a bed with children. My point is about trial by media and how the people asserting Jackson's guilt are just as bad as those asserting blind innocence.

What does that mean you're not making any assertions about a grown man sharing a bed with children he doesn't know. That is not a small insignificant thing.

It is not just creepy or weird it is down right twisted.

People looking for proof of a crime, what do you want a, videos, pictures?

What I think is happening is a lot of people are looking at the well documented things that happened, and coming to the conclusion, 30 years too late, this is not right.
This is not the actions of a eccentric, lovable man child, this is the actions of a potential predator.

Even if I was to disbelieve the recent documentaries there is enough in the public domain for me to reach the conclusion that Jackson was a dangerous individual, enabled by his staff and the seriously dysfunctional parents of the kids involved.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments