Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 03:15PM

Pissartist wrote: »

How anyone can say he wasn't a paedo is beyond me.

And your basing this on?

I hope a one sided documentary isn't one thing you are basing it on? You probably are though.

I get the feeling court cases and trials and investigations by professionals mean nothing to a lot of people.

What counts is fancy lighting, ominous music and outlandish accusations of behavior such as being raped outdoors that no-one else saw.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 03:19PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

...that no-one else saw.

Third time might work. I'll try and go more slowly. Most times when somebody gets raped, there are no witnesses. There is a very good reason for this - which is that rape is a very serious crime. So most of the time people who decide to rape don't do it in front of witnesses.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 03:20PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Third time might work. I'll try and go more slowly. Most times when somebody gets raped, there are no witnesses. There is a very good reason for this - which is that rape is a very serious crime. So most of the time people who decide to rape don't do it in front of witnesses.

I will go even slower.
Where are the dozens are hundreds of victims coming out of the woodwork?
Where are the staff who worked on Neverland yet never reported any rape outdoors (not indoors).

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 03:24PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I will go even slower.
Where are the dozens are hundreds of victims coming out of the woodwork?

Maybe because they know thousands of people like you all over the world will tear their characters apart out of some kind of misguided loyalty to a musician they liked in the 80s.

Maybe it's too traumatic.

Maybe they were paid off and signed NDAs.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Where are the staff who worked on Neverland yet never reported any rape outdoors (not indoors).

Already answered above. The neverland ranch spans thousands of acres. It would be easy to find a private area with no staff around.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 03:25PM

160 people worked on the Neverland Ranch by the way.

https://ew.com/article/2015/05/29/michael-jackson-neverland-ranch-numbers/

Plenty of independent eye witnesses there to see any outdoor shenanigans. Surely Safechuck can find 1, just 1 to back up his allegations.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 03:27PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Maybe because they know thousands of people like you all over the world will tear their characters apart out of some kind of misguided loyalty to a musician they liked in the 80s.

Maybe it's too traumatic.

Maybe they were paid off and signed NDAs.

Already answered above. The neverland ranch spans thousands of acres. It would be easy to find a private area with no staff around.

Sorry, too many maybes there. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe if my aunt had b*lls..

He was specific where the rapes happened, I will give him that - right in the middle of the property - not out on the fringes - right in the middle, the most central part.

kunst nugget · 08-03-2019 03:28PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

160 people worked on the Neverland Ranch by the way.

https://ew.com/article/2015/05/29/michael-jackson-neverland-ranch-numbers/

Plenty of independent eye witnesses there to see any outdoor shenanigans. Surely Safechuck can find 1, just 1 to back up his allegations.

160 people, 2,800 acre ranch. That's 1 person for every 17.5 acres. They totally would have been able to see all parts of the ranch at all times...

BorneTobyWilde · 08-03-2019 03:28PM

This would be a perfect time for all those apparent long list of paid off victims to speak up, if they are out there I hope then do. But I'm guessing there is none.

I'd love to know either way. All we have is two guys who contradict 1000's of other girls and boys who have spent time with Jackson, including Brett Barnes, who Wade sees as a victim or possible one. Brett called BS on that though as did Culkin and Feldman.

I'd love others to speak up so that it's not just these two guys who have a record of trying so hard to obtain millions from the Jackson Estate. They want money so badly and have lost in court so often that it lends one to be very bitter and willing to do anything to tare down the Jackson Estate. There is no love lost between these two guys and the Jacksons, and great motivation for payback the only way they know how, hit them where it hurts, bring up the one thing that will hurt the most, Jackson was a child abuser.
They have dubbed so many, including Reed and their own family. They are living the ultimate lie for the ultimate reward of money. They should just go get a job and forget the gravy train they so desperately want to ride.
From the age of 7 Wade is living off the help Jackson gave him, and now he is dead he wants to continue to live off of him.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 03:28PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sorry, too many maybes there. Maybe this, maybe that, maybe if my aunt had b*lls..

He was specific where the rapes happened, I will give him that - right in the middle of the property - not out on the fringes - right in the middle, the most central part.

Your answers are all maybes too. The only difference is that I'm acknowledging that my theories are speculation and you're acting like you absolutely know the truth when you can't possibly...

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 03:29PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

This would be a perfect time for all those apparent long list of paid off victims to speak up, if they are out there I hope then do. But I'm guessing there is none.

They can't, because they'll have signed NDAs which mean the Jackson estate can come after them for what they were paid and more if they do.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 03:30PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

160 people worked on the Neverland Ranch by the way.

https://ew.com/article/2015/05/29/michael-jackson-neverland-ranch-numbers/

Plenty of independent eye witnesses there to see any outdoor shenanigans. Surely Safechuck can find 1, just 1 to back up his allegations.

Ummm, there was one. The maid. Then she was paid $2million to change her mind. Convenient, right?

BorneTobyWilde · 08-03-2019 03:37PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

They can't, because they'll have signed NDAs which mean the Jackson estate can come after them for what they were paid and more if they do.

Jackson is dead, what they ''signed lol '' is not valid. I think there is no one but the conman who held Michael to ransom in 1993. He got his money and now others want a slice. The Arvizo family wanted a slice to, their eyes were bulging with dollars signs. Jackson went to court on first day and danced on top of a Limo, said enough was enough, that the truth will run marathons, and so it did. Their story of jesus juice and hot air balloons was laughed at by the jurors, and the LAPD & FBI could not show any actual evidence, all they had was a story with nothing to back it up.
Other lawyers could not believe how on earth this got to trial with no evidence in the locker to pull out, they were like WTF! They've never in their life seen a case go to trial with no evidence, and never have since. No one could understand it from a legal point.

ceadaoin. · 08-03-2019 03:51PM

Boggles wrote: »

Also the claim is convicted paedo's wrote the books? When were they convicted?

I can't imagine they would still be on sale or in American Library's if that was the case, maybe it would.

And just to point out again, Jackson basically had a Library, a conservative estimate stated he had a million books.

It's the books "Boys will be Boys" and "the Boy". no one "wrote" the books but the editor and several of the photographers were paedophiles

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/1981-nambla-britishpedigree/

But you should know this because I posted the details previously.

marklazarcovic · 08-03-2019 03:53PM

everybody sues for money in the states,everyone, nicole browns family sued oj, the legal system favors the rich over there ,civil cases are easier to get some kind of comeback.. nearly every big case is followed by a lawsuit for cash.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 03:57PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

160 people, 2,800 acre ranch. That's 1 person for every 17.5 acres. They totally would have been able to see all parts of the ranch at all times...

The places he named were highly visible and central. It would have been impossible for the staff to avoid especially if it was happening on a daily basis.

marklazarcovic · 08-03-2019 03:57PM

When asked about directly by Diane Sawyer in June 1995 if it was true that nude boy books were found by police in his bedroom, Jackson flat out lied:

SAWYER: Then, that they found photographs, books, of young boys who were undressed…

JACKSON: No, not that I know of, unless people sent me things that I haven’t opened.

How do we know he lied? As revealed at his molestation trial, both books were inscribed by Jackson himself.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 03:58PM

I know this has been said before but just to reinforce it.

It's perfectly possible that the families are money hungry and looking to make a quick buck AND that MJ abused the boys. It doesn't have to be one or the other...

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 04:01PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The places he named were highly visible and central. It would have been impossible for the staff to avoid especially if it was happening on a daily basis.

Are you able to accept that there is a possibility that some of the boys who visited the Neverland Ranch were molested?

retro:electro · 08-03-2019 04:01PM

Imagine defending someone who was in possession of this book and even had it locked away in a special cabinet.

Ick.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 04:05PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Ummm, there was one. The maid. Then she was paid $2million to change her mind. Convenient, right?

If true, then its hugely profitable for a member of staff to come forward and make accusations or back up accusations of others. You could potentially retire off it.

So in the 30 years since these outdoor rapes are supposed to have occurred, have we evidence of any member of staff being paid off to keep quiet about them? Its strange that in 30 years, no member of staff has mentioned these rapes before, and we only have the word of Safechuck.

08-03-2019 04:06PM

anyone hear RTE radio 1 earlier? Jacksons Irish doctor was on saying that no such material concerning boys was ever found in any of his properties.

I wonder why the interviewer didnt challenge that idea.

marklazarcovic · 08-03-2019 04:07PM

its just a coincidence that a guy suspected of molesting young boys has lots and lots of images of naked young boys in locked drawers in his bedroom,and they are not in his massive library downstairs,coincidence..move along.

ceadaoin. · 08-03-2019 04:07PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

Did he say it happened "outdoors"? I don't remember that. He went through a list of places around the grounds where it happened, secluded rooms in the arcade, the cinema, train station etc where it was possible to know if someone was coming. Don't remember outside?

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 04:11PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Are you able to accept that there is a possibility that some of the boys who visited the Neverland Ranch were molested?

I'm not the FBI. I didn't spend 10 years and send out 90 officers to take the place apart top from bottom. They found no evidence of molestation.

Its not for me to say what happened here. All I ask for is independent evidence.

For the last time these accusers have been laughed out of it by a judge before they even got to court. They have serious credibility issues. Its a pity they didn't make it to court so their credibility could be called into question, but the judge made the decision these guys were not reliable and would be wasting everyone's time.

I don't care if its Michael Jackson, Mother Theresa, Hitler or Saddam Hussein, the principle of a fair and balanced trial is the same. And that's the most disturbing thing about this documentary, the effort to portray it as true and accurate when it is as clearly as one sided as you can get.

ceadaoin. · 08-03-2019 04:13PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I'm not the FBI. I didn't spend 10 years and send out 90 officers to take the place apart top from bottom. They found no evidence of molestation.

Its not for me to say what happened here. All I ask for is independent evidence.

For the last time these accusers have been laughed out of it by a judge before they even got to court. They have serious credibility issues. Its a pity they didn't make it to court so their credibility could be called into question, but the judge made the decision these guys were not reliable and would be wasting everyone's time.

I don't care if its Michael Jackson, Mother Theresa, Hitler or Saddam Hussein, the principle of a fair and balanced trial is the same. And that's the most disturbing thing about this documentary, the effort to portray it as true and accurate when it is as clearly as one sided as you can get.

This is also false. The FBI did not "investigate him for 10 years" as is often claimed. They assisted other police forces occasionally. From their own website

That’s Dave Hardy, chief of the FBI’s Freedom of Information Program, who says that while FBI didn’t investigate Jackson, the files now available show the FBI working with other agencies

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 04:15PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I'm not the FBI. I didn't spend 10 years and send out 90 officers to take the place apart top from bottom. They found no evidence of molestation.

Its not for me to say what happened here. All I ask for is independent evidence.

But it really does seem as though your mind is already made up. Mine isn't. I'm obviously leaning towards believing he was a paedophile, but I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

You say all you want is evidence, but every time someone presents you with some you dismiss it. You aren't as impartial as you seem to think you are.

ceadaoin. · 08-03-2019 04:16PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The places he named were highly visible and central. It would have been impossible for the staff to avoid especially if it was happening on a daily basis.

They werent highly visible and central. A private room in the cinema, a small room that was above the arcade, another room in the train station, upstairs in the cottage. First you said it was "outside" which it wasn't and now you're saying they were "highly visible areas". Also, not true. Why are you misrepresenting what he said? If you have to do that to make your point , then you don't really have a point do you?

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 04:22PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They werent highly visible and central. A private room in the cinema, a small room that was above the arcade, another room in the train station, upstairs in the cottage. Why are you misrepresenting what he said?

I was responding to someone who said it was almost a 3000 acre ranch. That may be so, but the alleged rapes happened in the main part of the structure. So yes the central part of the ranch.

ceadaoin. · 08-03-2019 04:25PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I was responding to someone who said it was almost a 3000 acre ranch. That may be so, but the alleged rapes happened in the main part of the structure. So yes the central part of the ranch.

But in small, secluded rooms, usually up a stairs where they would know if someone was coming. Not "highly visible areas" like you said.

Youre just making stuff up to suit your point of view

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 04:25PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

But it really does seem as though your mind is already made up. Mine isn't. I'm obviously leaning towards believing he was a paedophile, but I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

You say all you want is evidence, but every time someone presents you with some you dismiss it. You aren't as impartial as you seem to think you are.

Nope, like you my mind isn't made up. I just need to see more evidence to back up what these accusers are saying. Solid evidence, not insinuations such as because he acted this way or that way it must be true.
Solid evidence directly relating to what Safechuck alleges for example. All we have is his word. If he was a highly credible person, that would be almost enough for me. But he's been peddling accusations for a number of years now and one judge in particular thought he was talking baloney.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments