Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Micky Jackson in trouble again

1…5051535556…117

Comments

  • #1562
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    marklazarcovic wrote: »
    Is the gagg on Chandler still active if the accused is now dead? I'll bet there are a lot of parents preventing their sons from speaking up because they benefitted financially from their kids relationship with MJ and don't want the shame of it exposed to them.

    I hope this documentary allows his no doubt multiple other victims to speak up, although it could be years before they get the courage,if ever.

    I’d imagine the gag is still in place and that he will be sued by the Jackson estate should he break the terms of the settlement.

    I hope it encourages others to speak up but unfortunately I reckon it could do the opposite. Everyone who has accused Jackson has been torn to shreds by devout fans. I don’t imagine someone who is already recovering from a highly fragile state would want to put that on themselves, they may just feel not worth it. There’s still a startling amount of defenders out there. I saw one post (on a different thread) excusing sharing beds with little boys “if the bed was big and if there was teddies in the middle”.

    :rolleyes:


  • #1563
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Whaaaaat?

    You do realise how ridiculous this statement is.

    Child abusers don't generally do their molestation in front of "multiple independent witnesses" for obvious reasons.

    But we do have one to start with - the maid who saw him showering with a child.

    Fine. Multiple independent victims of assault. We can expect a deluge now. So far we have in recent years these two guys with a history of filing failed frivolous lawsuits which were thrown out and which the judge in at least one case called one accuser a liar. A judge's opinion is good enough for me.

    The problem with documentary makers is they don't have legal training, certainly not up to the standard of a judge. They are your bog standard amateur sleuths and dangerous idiots who allow unsubstantiated accusations be thrown around like confeffi at best. This seems to be the new norm.


  • #1564
    Necro
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 56,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭Necro


    8-10 wrote:
    There is a difference between defending Jackson and attacking poor arguments and thinking that Chandler, Arviso, Robson and Safechuck are liars.

    And apparently ignoring all the other evidence that points to him as a paedo as well that has been documented multiples of times in this thread already. And still not one cogent, tangible argument against that.

    Moderator: Current Affairs/IMHO, Soccer, Pro Wrestling



  • #1565
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    You still struggle to make the distinction between being a fan of a fair and balanced trial or a balanced documentary and a fan of MJ. They are completely separate. But keep trying to link the two.

    I have just said the documentary is largely irrelevant.
    I'm talking about the well established evidence that exists is enough for me to reach the conclusion he was a manipulative and dangerous individual.

    The documentary has re focussed attention on his life and actions which had largely been forgotten in my view.

    So I'll say this again the documentary is not the only thing here. It is not the only evidence against Michael Jackson.

    It is getting tiresome making that point constantly.

    How about answering the hypothetical question about Ed Sherran. Would you need a court case to have an opinion.


  • #1566
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    8-10 wrote: »
    There is a difference between defending Jackson and attacking poor arguments and thinking that Chandler, Arviso, Robson and Safechuck are liars.

    That's it in a nutshell. We are led to believe Jackson slept with and potentially molested hundreds of kids. So far only 5 have come forward and Jackson was found innocent in a court room for one or found there was not enough evidence to justify a trial in two other cases. So a failed trial and two failed frivolous suits.


  • Advertisement
  • #1567
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,515 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    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.

    people can make accusations. however, what ultimately matters is sufficient proof and that being brought to the relevant authorities so that the individual accused can be put on trial. this was done in 1 case and jackson was found not guilty. there could have been another court case earlier but the parents decided not to persue it after jackson was stupid enough to pay out. then we have the 2 guys behind the documentary, who upon looking at them and their history, do unfortunately seem to look to have credibility issues.
    the thing is, the non-proven allegations and all the other stuff leveled at jackson, doesn't in itself suggest that jackson was a paedophile. it does suggest he simply slept with children, which it is absolutely agreed is unacceptible behaviour in itself.
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Unlike any other case of this nature, victim testimony means nothing here. Why?

    because ultimately, the accusers unfortunately do seem to not be credible when everything is examined and taken into account. so a black and white decision isn't possible for everyone to reach.
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    What would be enough proof for you?

    a court case with the evidence of both sides coming to a guilty verdict based on compelling evidence.
    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    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

    of course, there is no "proper" way abuse victims should behave. i think we can all agree on that. but again, there are to many co-incidents and issues with the 2 men in the documentary to simply wipe them asside and say 100% that they are telling the truth. those of us who are of this view would not have come to that view lightly i should think. i certainly didn't. but we did because everything as a whole when examined brought us in this direction.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #1568
    Boggles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,493 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    There is no gag order on Chandler he is free to discuss whatever he is asked in any court. He was asked to testify against Jackson in 2005 and refused. His mother testified in the case FFS. There was a book written.

    Robson tried to bully him into testifying at his deposition, as well as sister.

    Chandler left the country as he did before.

    Just another BS grenade thrown in and left to permeate. :rolleyes:


  • #1569
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Fine. Multiple independent victims of assault. We can expect a deluge now. So far we have in recent years these two guys with a history of filing failed frivolous lawsuits which were thrown out and which the judge in at least one case called one accuser a liar. A judge's opinion is good enough for me.

    The problem with documentary makers is they don't have legal training, certainly not up to the standard of a judge. They are your bog standard amateur sleuths and dangerous idiots who allow unsubstantiated accusations be thrown around like confeffi at best. This seems to be the new norm.

    Yes, and if this documentary was the first and only time we had every heard anything about MJ being a paedo, I'd agree with you.

    But there have been dozens of accusers over decades, and plenty of circumstantial evidence (which a lot of people misunderstand to mean it's invalid - juries can convict based on circumstantial evidence if it convinces them "beyond a reasonable doubt")

    I can't be 100% sure because I wasn't there, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.


  • #1570
    Agricola
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭Agricola


    The defense of Michael Jackson sounds just like the defense of Trump. Shady big shot given benefit of the doubt because he's a big shot.

    Lets be honest, if any of us knew a Micheal Jackson figure in our community, a man who looked as odd as him, sounded as odd as him, and was proven to like the company of young boys in his bed, the pitchforks would be out and no mercy would be given. And that's WITHOUT all the circumstantial evidence that's involved in this case....

    But because Jackson was the biggest superstar in the world for a time, he gets a free pass.
    Given what a fruitcake the guy was, I'd actually be more surprised if he was innocent.


  • #1571
    valoren
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,602 ✭✭✭valoren


    Agricola wrote: »
    The defense of Michael Jackson sounds just like the defense of Trump. Shady big shot given benefit of the doubt because he's a big shot.

    Lets be honest, if any of us knew a Micheal Jackson figure in our community, a man who looked as odd as him, sounded as odd as him, and was proven to like the company of young boys in his bed, the pitchforks would be out and no mercy would be given. And that's WITHOUT all the circumstantial evidence that's involved in this case....

    But because Jackson was the biggest superstar in the world for a time, he gets a free pass.
    Given what a fruitcake the guy was, I'd actually be more surprised if he was innocent.

    I wouldn't call an 18 month long criminal trial a "free pass".


  • Advertisement
  • #1572
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    Despite plenty of publicity for this documentary all over the world and particularly in the US, we are still waiting for a deluge of victims to lend credibility to it.
    Still waiting.
    All we've got so far are two guys with a history of frivolous suits.
    Riddle me that.


  • #1573
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Despite plenty of publicity for this documentary all over the world and particularly in the US, we are still waiting for a deluge of victims to lend credibility to it.

    It's also perfectly possible that MJ only abused a handful of children - why do you assume there must be dozens? And that if there aren't, it can't be true?

    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    All we've got so far are two guys with a history of frivolous suits.
    Riddle me that.

    Did you watch the documentary?


  • #1574
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Despite plenty of publicity for this documentary all over the world and particularly in the US, we are still waiting for a deluge of victims to lend credibility to it.
    Still waiting.
    All we've got so far are two guys with a history of frivolous suits.
    Riddle me that.

    One who only in 2013 testified that MJ never abused him but suddenly changed his story??


  • #1575
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    One who only in 2013 testified that MJ never abused him but suddenly changed his story??

    Lots of people from abusive homes would testify that their parents never harmed them, only to realise the extent of the trauma and tell the truth at a later stage.

    If you've buried the abuse and you believe that you owe everything you have and everything you are to this person, you might lie for them in court and regret it later on.

    Recovery from sexual abuse is a long and complex road.


  • #1576
    Wombatman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭Wombatman


    The kids parents disgust me more than Jackson.


  • #1577
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Lots of people from abusive homes would testify that their parents never harmed them, only to realise the extent of the trauma and tell the truth at a later stage.

    If you've buried the abuse and you believe that you owe everything you have and everything you are to this person, you might lie for them in court and regret it later on.

    Recovery from sexual abuse is a long and complex road.

    Yeah and every human is capable of lieing.

    And 99.999999% do during their life.


  • #1578
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    It's also perfectly possible that MJ only abused a handful of children - why do you assume there must be dozens? And that if there aren't, it can't be true?

    The suit of one of the accusers is against what he describes as the largest most sophisticated system of child grooming and abuse in the history of mankind, or words to that effect.

    So its his words, not mine.

    So either he's exaggerating (which clearly he is) or there are hundreds maybe even thousands of victims out there. You'd think at least 10 new ones would come forward.

    You can understand why some people call BS on some of the accusers.

    These accusers have a history of lies and exaggeration - anyone looking objectively would see that. Some of what they say may be true, the problem is no-one knows what parts and without others to come forward, its impossible to know.


  • #1579
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Yeah and every human is capable of lieing.

    And 99.999999% do during their life.

    Yes. I'm open to the possibility that these men, their parents, the kid MJ paid off and any other accusers are *all* lying. It's possible.

    But on balance, I think it's unlikely.


  • #1580
    innuendo141
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,081 ✭✭✭innuendo141


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Yeah and every human is capable of lieing.

    And 99.999999% do during their life.

    These 2 lads have already been proven to have lied as per their depositions from 2012 to 2017 available online. This is why many take issues with believing what they have to say. For the documentary to have ignored this is mad.


  • #1581
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    These accusers have a history of lies and exaggeration - anyone looking objectively would see that.

    And MJ has a history of sleeping in bed with small children while in his 30s.


  • Advertisement
  • #1582
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Yes. I'm open to the possibility that these men, their parents, the kid MJ paid off and any other accusers are *all* lying. It's possible.

    But on balance, I think it's unlikely.

    And a former maid who has nothing to gain from lying.

    Those looking for a conspiracy need to look a little closer to home.


  • #1583
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    And MJ has a history of sleeping in bed with small children while in his 30s.

    Yes but the accusation is he raped them.

    Still waiting for multiple credible witnesses (without a history of lies or exaggeration) to say he raped them. Still waiting.


  • #1584
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    retro:electro wrote: »
    And a former maid who has nothing to gain from lying.

    Those looking for a conspiracy need to look a little closer to home.

    Yes that accusation is more serious, agreed. It would be great if the boy in question came forward to be interviewed by police or other potential victims did so. Because that's the place to deal with accusations. Courts and the police. Most critics of this documentary have been consistent about that - ie trial by judge and jury with a fair and balanced trial.
    Safechuck said he was raped outdoors on the estate on a daily basis. I presume the estate had a large workforce. So any witnesses to that? There must be some.


  • #1585
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Yes but the accusation is he raped them.

    Still waiting for multiple credible witnesses (without a history of lies or exaggeration) to say he raped them. Still waiting.

    Are you seriously saying you only think a rape allegation is credible if there are multiple witnesses? You should convert to Wahabbi Islam, that's what they believe too. Now they need four witnesses, would that be enough for you? And they need them to be male. Would you be happy enough with four female witnesses.

    AGAIN: CHILD RAPE DOESN'T ORDINARILY HAPPEN IN FRONT OF A VARIETY OF WITNESSES.


  • #1586
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Yes but the accusation is he raped them.

    Still waiting for multiple credible witnesses (without a history of lies or exaggeration) to say he raped them. Still waiting.

    So what is your opinion of Michael Jackson based on the well established evidence in the public plus his own admissions.

    Is it that he is a creepy,weird individual but until there is a conviction in court you will reserve any further judgement, and give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Would you have the same opinion if a modern celebrity behaved in the same way as Jackson did in the 80's and 90's.?

    Fairly simple questions


  • #1587
    retro:electro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Still waiting for multiple credible witnesses (without a history of lies or exaggeration) to say he raped them. Still waiting.

    God I’ve read some muck on this site but this has to be up there with the worst of it.

    What exactly are you looking for? Photographic evidence? You’ve already dismissed a maid who walked on a nude showering session with a little boy. I can’t speak for why he hasn’t come forward yet. Maybe he was paid off right away? Maybe he’s not ready to? Maybe he’s absoluely fcuking mortified? Who knows? The irony of you stating over and over that we need a court of law to decide the truth while you’re so casually dismissive of what others have seen and experienced and seem to have self appointed yourself as judge, jury and executioner.

    Please don’t even reply to this. I honestly can’t read any more of your guff.


  • #1588
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    Are you seriously saying you only think a rape allegation is credible if there are multiple witnesses? You should convert to Wahabbi Islam, that's what they believe too. Now they need four witnesses, would that be enough for you? And they need them to be male. Would you be happy enough with four female witnesses.

    AGAIN: CHILD RAPE DOESN'T ORDINARILY HAPPEN IN FRONT OF A VARIETY OF WITNESSES.

    It happened outdoors on a daily basis. Are you telling me in a place where perhaps dozens of people worked, gardeners, maids, etc that no-one witnessed this?
    These are the kind of independent witnesses we need and didn't get.

    All we get got is unchallenged testimony. It wouldn't last 5 minutes in a court.

    A bit more questioning by a lawyer would get to the bottom of things such as where outside did it happen, what time of days, what dates, any witnesses and so on. You know being properly challenged.


  • #1589
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    retro:electro wrote: »
    God I’ve read some muck on this site but this has to be up there with the worst of it.

    What exactly are you looking for? Photographic evidence? You’ve already dismissed a maid who walked on a nude showering session with a little boy. I can’t speak for why he hasn’t come forward yet. Maybe he was paid off right away? Maybe he’s not ready to? Maybe he’s absoluely fcuking mortified? Who knows? The irony of you stating over and over that we need a court of law to decide the truth while you’re so casually dismissive of what others have seen and experienced and seem to have self appointed yourself as judge jury and executioner.

    Please don’t even reply to this. I honestly can’t read any more of your guff.

    It didn't all happen behind closed doors. You are ignoring what the accusers are saying at this stage. It happened on a daily basis outdoors on the estate. So answer me this, where are the witnesses? I'd be interested to see how you square that circle.


  • #1590
    micks_address
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,206 ✭✭✭micks_address


    I was a little confused by the porn content discussed in the documentary. Is it normal for someone who supposedly was only interested in boys to watch heterosexual porn?


  • Advertisement
  • #1591
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    Unfortunately Safechuck and Robson's stories have more holes than swiss cheese.

    No wonder the fear of having a counterpoint.

    As journalism goes this ranks right down there with various UK tabloids or the National Enquirer.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement