Micky Jackson in trouble again

Ann22 · 09-03-2019 09:03AM

Interesting article in the journal about his Cork visit...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/michael-jackson-finding-neverland-sam-smyth-4529933-Mar2019/?amp=1

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 09:07AM

android1 wrote: »

People have always thought Michael Jackson was just a big kid, denied a childhood & his prominent association with them was a reflection of that. And I see the logic in this thinking. So why is it always little boys and never little girls that have made these accusations?

Look up "Michael Jackson Jane Doe". She had initially attached herself to Robson and Safechucks claim, then revoked.

tigger123 · 09-03-2019 09:08AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You can sue his estate though.

Oh wait, they tried that. The judge threw it out before it went to court. If a judge who has seen all the evidence from both sides, thinks that, its good enough for me.

The judge threw it out on a technicality, based upon the fact that an estate can't be held responsible for the actions of person who's deceased. He was very clear about why the case couldn't proceed.

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 09:10AM

tigger123 wrote: »

The judge threw it out on a technicality, based upon the fact that an estate can't be held responsible for the actions of person who's deceased. He was very clear about why the case couldn't proceed.

That was the first claim. The 2 claims under appeal are against the MJ Companies, who can be held responsible.

tigger123 · 09-03-2019 09:15AM

innuendo141 wrote: »

That was the first claim. The 2 claims under appeal are against the MJ Companies, who can be held responsible.

The point I'm making is that it's been argued on a point of law, not about whether the claims have any merit or not.

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 09:19AM

tigger123 wrote: »

The point I'm making is that it's been argued on a point of law, not about whether the claims have any merit or not.

Ah, I get you. A quote keeps popping up about one of Robson's claims being dismissed based on lies he had told during proceedings, and that no jury would believe him, but I've yet to see the source on that one. Thinks it's referenced in the suit against HBO

Boggles · 09-03-2019 09:50AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Does it have to list all his published works in an article about a crime? That is the person who edited the book. A convicted pedophile and nambla member. The other person who edited the book is also a convicted pedophile but knock yourself out denying it. Or just go back to the "but he had thousands of books" defence. Whatever.

Again there is no credible proof of that. Actually there is no proof.

You are getting your information from this site you linked to

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

Which appear just to be a few weird blogs naming random paedos, all though it is masquerading as some sort of legitimate book depository.

BITS OF BOOKS MOSTLY BIOGRAPHIES

Is the title of the blog.

The person credited with the "research"

All credit goes to @snowfaked for all materials and research

:pac:

'Snowfaked' just picks 2 random convicted paedos and claims without any proof they edited the book. It's beyond farcical.

Again just another Bullshít grenade thrown in and let permeate.

:rolleyes:

Hannibal_Smith · 09-03-2019 09:59AM

The Martin Bashir interview is a very interesting watch after seeing these interviews. Bashir comes across as a right pain in the ass who didnt like him from the start. But Jacskons ability to plainly lie to his face about the plastic surgery repeats itself when hes being asked about sharing his bed with kids.

AllForIt · 09-03-2019 10:14AM

Ann22 wrote: »

Interesting article in the journal about his Cork visit...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/michael-jackson-finding-neverland-sam-smyth-4529933-Mar2019/%3famp=1

“I’m quite convinced that they are telling the truth,” he said. “I think most people would be… I think the film is very credible and very skillfully made.”

Interesting choice of words at the end there, and something I'd agree with!

I take it Dunphy and Smyth were there as journalists rather than both teaming up together because of a shared interest in MJ's music. Can't quite see Dunphy trying to emulate the moonwalk.

I don't see anything unusual about a mega star having curtains closed and a do not disturb sign on his door with 101 photographers swarming all over the place. I'm sure that would be the case whether anyone else was in the room or not.

fryup · 09-03-2019 10:28AM

Wade Robson the emotionally damaged sex abuse victim...hmmm really?

watch this.....

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

Boggles · 09-03-2019 10:40AM

fryup wrote: »

watch this.....

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

4:20 in that video is the genesis of the ruse.

fryup · 09-03-2019 10:47AM

you know watching the first part of the documentary i was convinced Robson & Safechuck were genuine but after watching the second part....i'm not sure in fact i'm gradually coming to the conclusion this is one big money swindling hoax

go to 5.30 in the video above, you can see it his face he's lying > that slight smirk, the tone of his voice

me thinks sooner or later these guys will be found out, watch this space

fin12 · 09-03-2019 10:47AM

Wade Robson is a lying piece of sh*t.

fin12 · 09-03-2019 10:49AM

fryup wrote: »

you know watching the first part of the documentary i was convinced Robson & Safechuck were genuine but after watching the second part....i'm not sure in fact i'm gradually coming to the conclusion this is one big money swindling hoax

go to 5.30 in the video above, you can see it his face he lying > that slight smirk, the tone of his voice

me thinks sooner or later these guys will be found out, watch this space

Did you see where the interviewer was like be specific and he just repeated exactly what he said. Pathetic b*stard.

saintsaltynuts · 09-03-2019 11:00AM

I think Michael Jackson done **** all.Money is the root of all evil and it's the only thing these ****er's ever looked for.

Necro · 09-03-2019 11:00AM

The body language experts out in force this morning I see :pac:

To those who think he's lying I'll put the same question MJ defenders put to those who believe him to be a sicko:

What quantifiable tangible evidence do you have that he is lying? It works both ways.

fryup · 09-03-2019 11:08AM

tangible evidence? regarding Robson?

well he lied in the court case for the whole world to see, one big fat lie

Beechwoodspark · 09-03-2019 11:10AM

sligeach wrote: »

You are full of crap. That's twice now you've done that to my question. Provide a link please, or you're a liar.

Don’t attack me. You should focus your anger and attentions on How vile MJ was and how he and his pathetic family attempted to hide the truth for decades

Boggles · 09-03-2019 11:12AM

Necro wrote: »

What quantifiable tangible evidence do you have that he is lying?

The first lie?

In 4:20 of the video above he lies about working for the Jackson estate, that was 2011

In his deposition in 2013 he states under oath he didn't know Jackson had an estate until 2013.

That video at 4:20 is the genesis of the ruse.

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 11:26AM

Necro wrote: »

The body language experts out in force this morning I see :pac:

To those who think he's lying I'll put the same question MJ defenders put to those who believe him to be a sicko:

What quantifiable tangible evidence do you have that he is lying? It works both ways.

Hi depositions are online to see, where he tried to hide evidence (emails between himself and his family about the case), including a story in his book draft about abuse that his mother in an email stated was not true, changed when the abuse first happened, stating on US national television that he never forgot a moment of what Jackson did to him but his emails shared during the depositions show he was piecing stories and dates together from information he requested from his mother (for his book), he claims he got fired from the Cirque job - he wasn't hired. Shortly after this, the allegations were made.

Also, his first claim was sealed, meaning that he was solely looking for a payout. The Estate refused, which is when Robson went public with his claim. To say he is doing this to raise awareness is laughable. This info is all available online. For as weird inappropriate and downright creepy Jackson was, there is enough available out there it to make you question Robsons character and credibility. Funnily enough, none of the above is in the film. None of the above proves he is lying in the film, but it proves he has lied in the past linked directly to this issue, and people have a good reason to question his character.

Necro · 09-03-2019 11:30AM

innuendo141 wrote:

Also, his first claim was sealed, meaning that he was solely looking for a payout. The Estate refused, which is when Robson went public with his claim. To say he is doing this to raise awareness is laughable. This info is all available online. For as weird inappropriate and downright creepy Jackson was, there is enough available out there it to make you question Robsons character and credibility. Funnily enough, none of the above is in the film. None of the above proves he is lying in the film, but it proves he has lied in the past, and people have a good reason to question his character.

That's fair. People also have more than equal reason to question Jackson's character as well though. There's enough evidence to make it more than likely he was minimally a disturbed individual, and likely much more sinister than that.

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 11:33AM

Necro wrote: »

That's fair. People also have more than equal reason to question Jackson's character as well though. There's enough evidence to make it more than likely he was minimally a disturbed individual, and likely much more sinister than that.

Absolutely, but everyone is well aware of what to question about Jackson. This film completely ignores any reason to question Robson, at least. And the funny thing is the director says he found no evidence to suggest either of them have ever lied. All this information is a click away.

Boggles · 09-03-2019 11:40AM

innuendo141 wrote: »

Also, his first claim was sealed, meaning that he was solely looking for a payout. The Estate refused,

This is key to the whole thing.

He chose to seal it (keep it private) in the hope he would get thrown a few million to make him go away. At this point he had messed up his own career, was broke and the wife was threatening to leave him. He initiated his suit mere weeks after no publisher would take him up on his book, a book he lied about the existence of not just under oath but kept it from his own legal team.

The "reasons" Robson says he has come forward is to highlight sexual abuse and particularly give a voice to the survivors and to make the Jackson estate and family "listen".

Very noble indeed until you discover that it was the Jackson estate that forced the allegations to be unsealed, thus it was them through their actions that made it public.

El_Bee · 09-03-2019 11:43AM

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 11:44AM

Boggles wrote: »

This is key to the whole thing.

He chose to seal it (keep it private) in the hope he would get thrown a few million to make him go away. At this point he had messed up his own career, was broke and the wife was threatening to leave him. He initiated his suit mere weeks after no publisher would take him up on his book, a book he lied about the existence of not just under oath but kept it from his own legal team.

The "reasons" Robson says he has come forward is to highlight sexual abuse and particularly give a voice to the survivors and to make the Jackson estate and family "listen".

Very noble indeed until you discover that it was the Jackson estate that forced the allegations to be unsealed, thus it was them through their actions that made it public.

One or two drone shots could have been removed to at least address and give an explanation to the above I think. They had a chance to erase all doubts about his motives and make the film twice as strong.

09-03-2019 12:01PM

Jacko being a paedo and the two men looking for money are not mutually exclusive.

Isn't it possible that they were abused, and want some compensation for that? People look for compensation all the time when something happens to them that shouldn't have.

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 12:05PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Jacko being a paedo and the two men looking for money are not mutually exclusive.

Isn't it possible that they were abused, and want some compensation for that? People look for compensation all the time when something happens to them that shouldn't have.

Again, true, but the fact that "doing this for the victims" is being thrown around, when initially it was a sealed claim is the part that's grinding me. If they were abused, they deserve compensation 100%. You can't expect compensation and not be quizzed along the way. Especially if you have left a suspicious trail behind you. Jacksons suspicions are covered in detail in the film and, to be honest, were already widely known. The omission of these details damages the integrity of this film is my mine point.

El_Bee · 09-03-2019 12:18PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Isn't it possible that they were abused, and want some compensation for that? People look for compensation all the time when something happens to them that shouldn't have.

The courts thoroughly examined those possibilities and rejected them. And I would have thought that this country's insane compo culture would have tempered our willingness to accept dodgy claims.

Boggles · 09-03-2019 12:30PM

Balmed Out wrote: »

What evidence is there normally in cases like this? In the case of a groomed child its usually one persons word against another, they look for other victims and circumstantial evidence. Jackson has had the money to pay off and hire the best lawyers, admits to sharing a bed with multiple young boys and has multiple accusers. It doesn't look good though not a certainty.

A case like this? This isn't one persons word against anothers.

Jackson and his "alleged" raping is only part of the case.

The allegation is that 2 companies owned by Jackson were setup for the sole purpose to procure children for rape.

The claim is they were targeted by the "worlds most sophisticated" pedophilia ring and delivered to a child rapist.

There is nothing "normal" about this case.

These people are still alive and TBH if Jackson was a child rapist, these people are just as bad if the allegations are true.

Yet no criminal complaint has ever gone in about them.

Why do think that is?

sligeach · 09-03-2019 12:42PM

sabat wrote: »

The level of denial amongst his fanboys is a truly fascinating phenomenon. I know this type of comment isn't really allowed on boards and I'll probably get a card for saying it, but they are suffering from a mental illness, utterly bewildered by the manipulations of the mass media programming that created MJ's public persona in the first place. In their minds he was almost a god with supernatural powers that render the norms of human behaviour irrelevant to any discussion.

Utter nonsense. The media are a disgrace. They've condemned Michael Jackson with very few outlets questioning the mockumentary. They've been like this for decades.

The Michael Jackson Trial : One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzAtdQN56c

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xpzAtdQN56c

When Michael was found innocent, the media questioned the jury decision for a bit, but this was good news, and they're not interested in that. They just love negative news, you watch the news, it's largely negative, it's what sells. People love gossip and having a b1tch. It's the same with soaps on TV. Why do people watch them? Are the storylines happily ever after? Are they f*€K? They're full of murders, rape, incest, underage pregnancies, molestation, drug dealing, affairs, and on and on it goes.

Victims of genuine abuse should be listened too. But these 2 have lied numerous times, the circumstances leading up their accusations give them motive, they've lied in their lawsuits against the Estate, their stories have changed, they say it's not about money. It's so about money, 100's and 100's of millions of $'s. They leave that out of the mockumentary. There's no balance in the program and no balance in the media.

They're like sharks feeding off a dead carcass and when there's nothing left they'll move on to the next big story. Why should Robson and Safechuck be believed when there's so much evidence that they're lying? And not just them, their families too. The mockumentary was 100% one-sided, why hasn't it been for the most part questioned by the media? Why haven't they looked at their failed court cases, their lies, their ludicrous claims and what the judge had to say about them?

I think this a desperate attempt by them to get the public on their side, and bring their families in on it. In the hope that the judge will now listen to it. They've made it as graphic as possible and expanded the alleged abuse over as long a period as possible to extract the biggest claim in compensation. If anything, this mockumentary has damaged their case even further because they've added to their lies, that includes both mothers and Robson’s wife. But I'd like to see it go to court, so that people can see the truth and so that these liars can perjure themselves, again. That way they can face jail time.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments