Micky Jackson in trouble again

ceadaoin. · 10-03-2019 09:05PM

Remember the British guy in the 70s too who said that Jackson initiated phone sex during one of his many calls to him as a young teen? He has said he regrets the way it was sensationalised by the tabloids, but that it's true. He too felt guilty for betraying his friend. This all came out years before the abuse allegations.

There's a definite pattern and escalation over the years to all of it imo. Bombarding them with calls, and later on, faxes. Gradually introducing different things. By the time he got to the 90s he had it all figured out.

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 09:08PM

The whole "they are just out for the money" argument holds no water, I can think of easier ways of earning a living than participating in a gruelling four hour documentary publicly detailing that I sucked off a man etc..

Gimme A Pound · 10-03-2019 09:08PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Remember the British guy in the 70s too who said that Jackson initiated phone sex during one of his many calls to him? He has said he regrets the way it was sensationalised by the tabloids, but that it's true. This all came out years before the abuse allegations.

Remember very well that man being interviewed. He was in Leeds I think.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 09:09PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Remember the British guy in the 70s too who said that Jackson initiated phone sex during one of his many calls to him as a young teen? He has said he regrets the way it was sensationalised by the tabloids, but that it's true. This all came out years before the abuse allegations.

There's a definite pattern and escalation over the years to all of it imo. Bombarding them with calls, and later on, faxes. Gradually introducing different things. By the time he got to the 90s he had it all figured out.

Jackson was 12 in 1970 so when exactly was this guy talking about?

anewme · 10-03-2019 09:14PM

Wade did not mention in the documentary that he was dating MJ’s neice for 7 years and it was set up by MJ. He cheated on her with numerous people including Brittany Spears.

I’m surprised he did not mention it at all in the documentary. It’s relevant to the timeline and story.

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 09:14PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Jackson was 12 in 1970 so when exactly was this guy talking about?

He said the "70's"

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 09:16PM

tylercheribini wrote: »

He said the "1970's"

And my post shows he was a child for most of it.

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 09:21PM

is_that_so wrote: »

And my post shows he was a child for most of it.

????Incident occurred in 1979 when Jackson was 21, whats your 'point'?

Gimme A Pound · 10-03-2019 09:23PM

is_that_so wrote: »

And my post shows he was a child for most of it.

And it was the late '70s when Michael was in his early 20s obviously. Yes he was 12 in 1970 - and he was 21 in '79.

It was around the time of Off The Wall.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 09:26PM

tylercheribini wrote: »

????Incident occurred in 1979 when Jackson was 21, whats your 'point'?

It was just a question.

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 09:28PM

is_that_so wrote: »

It was just a question.

Nah you just misread post as 1970.

Mr.Wemmick · 10-03-2019 09:29PM

He aint no kid in 1979.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-Mrc2l1d0

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 09:34PM

tylercheribini wrote: »

Nah you just misread post as 1970.

Nope, saw 70s and sought clarification. It's OK no need for you to get into any more unnecessary schooling. We're done here.

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 09:42PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Nope, saw 70s and sought clarification. It's OK no need for you to get into any more unnecessary schooling. We're done here.

Grand, so you just couldn't make the jump yourself from Jackson being 12 in 1970 and 21 in 1979 bahaha

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 09:47PM

tylercheribini wrote: »

Grand, so you just couldn't make the jump yourself from Jackson being 12 in 1970 and 21 in 1979 bahaha

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 09:49PM

is_that_so wrote: »

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Im ****tin blood.

ToBeFrank123 · 10-03-2019 09:50PM

Boggles wrote: »

When he declared under oath that Jackson and his lawyers threatened him to testify in 2005.

That didn't happen, because it couldn't happen.

The trial was basically over it had more or less collapsed and the Judge stated no more witnesses.

But he wants us to believe that Jackson and his lawyers were threatening to put yet another hostile witness on the stand that he had "abused" when he didn't have to or couldn't anyway.

Unless of course there is or you have a plausible explanation for that?

Agreed. He was caught out on this lie bigtime. It was part of the narrative that he was no longer prepared to dance to Jacksons tune and that Jackson was not a nice guy.

Problem for Safechuck is we know its a lie. His testimony would not have been allowed and was outside the scope of the trial as set out by the judge. In other words he was never asked by anyone to testify.

He's a fantacist from what I can see. And I've come to the same conclusion about Robson who seems to have been an obsessive fan who couldn't deal with the fact post cirque du soleil he was no longer part of the MJ story.

hetuzozaho · 10-03-2019 10:06PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

He's a fantacist from what I can see. And I've come to the same conclusion about Robson who seems to have been an obsessive fan who couldn't deal with the fact post cirque du soleil he was no longer part of the MJ story.

Maybe, I was kind of thinking the opposite, that he was a bit obsessed with them, ringing them and sleeping with them when they were kids and that.

I guess we'll never know the truth.

BorneTobyWilde · 10-03-2019 10:08PM

Let’s make an analogy. Suppose you had to decide a court case based only on hearing the prosecution’s case presented? Suppose there is no defence, no cross examination, no presentation of exculpatory evidence, no opening statement and no closing argument? You would no doubt find the story as presented only through the voice of the prosecution and their witnesses quite compelling. It is only under cross examination that those stories often start to crumble, raising what we might call reasonable doubt. And it is only through exculpatory evidence that we can actually weigh an accused person’s guilt, or lack thereof.

Leaving Neverland is essentially the equivalent of sitting through a four-hour testimony of two prosecution witnesses offering their sales pitches, without benefit of cross examination. Entertaining? Possibly, if you consider four hours’ worth of extremely graphic descriptions of sexual acts against children entertaining. Truthful? Hard to say, except we know the track record of the accusers.''

Flippyfloppy · 10-03-2019 10:24PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Let’s make an analogy. Suppose you had to decide a court case based only on hearing the prosecution’s case presented? Suppose there is no defence, no cross examination, no presentation of exculpatory evidence, no opening statement and no closing argument? You would no doubt find the story as presented only through the voice of the prosecution and their witnesses quite compelling. It is only under cross examination that those stories often start to crumble, raising what we might call reasonable doubt. And it is only through exculpatory evidence that we can actually weigh an accused person’s guilt, or lack thereof.

Leaving Neverland is essentially the equivalent of sitting through a four-hour testimony of two prosecution witnesses offering their sales pitches, without benefit of cross examination. Entertaining? Possibly, if you consider four hours’ worth of extremely graphic descriptions of sexual acts against children entertaining. Truthful? Hard to say, except we know the track record of the accusers.''

Funnily enough the above happened in 93 and 05, but it was the opposite way around.

Back then we only heard from the defense, with carefully orchestrated rumours released to the media in order to discredit any accusers, and paint a picture of an innocent eccentric ‘child in a mans body’

brooke 2 · 10-03-2019 10:49PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Reading this thread has given me a understanding of how the Catholic Church got away with what they were doing for so fckin long. Blind fckin loyalty.

MJ was a textbook groomer/abuser/manipulator.

He was good at music.

People are going on like he was a saint, infallible,and his accusers are evil liars.

I actually think if they found homemade abuse vids by Jackson on kids they would find someway to explain away or discredit the victims on it.

Sickening.

And yes I know the guys might be telling some lies,might be,but there has been too much fckin downright obvious behavior from MJ for decades for me not to believe that there are many more boys than them that have been abused by him.

And I bet some of the people on here defending MJ would be the first to condemn the Catholic Church for protecting paedophiles. I cannot understand why people refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes. :mad:

brooke 2 · 10-03-2019 10:56PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

So did Priests. They got kids away from the parents, easy peasy, under the umbrella of the respectable Catholic Church. Children sleeping over in priest's houses, happened a lot.. and on religious trips where bedrooms were shared.

I don't get it. Have people been asleep, do not know what went on in our country with religious paedos?

Hollywood have got away with it for years. Agents taking away kids for movie auditions, older actors as mentors, etc. etc.

Jackson was so famous, his activities and movements were photographed a lot so we have the evidence of all his little companions holding his hand, being with him most the time.

Talk about wilful ignorance! :rolleyes:

+100

At the risk of repeating myself....

'There are none so blind as those who will not see'.

ToBeFrank123 · 10-03-2019 11:11PM

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Funnily enough the above happened in 93 and 05, but it was the opposite way around.

Back then we only heard from the defense, with carefully orchestrated rumours released to the media in order to discredit any accusers, and paint a picture of an innocent eccentric ‘child in a mans body’

But there was a prosecution in the case. A key difference. Prosecution and defence. Evidence tested on front of a judge and jury as per judicial norms. Cross examination and so on. All lacking in the documentary.

ToBeFrank123 · 10-03-2019 11:13PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

+100

At the risk of repeating myself....

'There are none so blind as those who will not see'.

Thats a meaningless platitude, no offence. It can be applied to both sides or to anything. I prefer to deal with hard evidence and credible witnesses myself.

ToBeFrank123 · 10-03-2019 11:21PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

And I bet some of the people on here defending MJ would be the first to condemn the Catholic Church for protecting paedophiles. I cannot understand why people refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes. :mad:

Priests were tried and convicted on front of a judge and jury.

You know. Tested evidence. Cross examination. Prosecution and defence. Opening and closing arguments for both sides. Little things like that which to paraphrase you some refuse to look for.

One of these accusers labelled himself the master of deception. That immediately should raise alarm bells.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 11:23PM

brooke 2 wrote: »

And I bet some of the people on here defending MJ would be the first to condemn the Catholic Church for protecting paedophiles. I cannot understand why people refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes. :mad:

I think you'll find few if any have defended him but there are some who have questions or who have issues with how the information has been presented. Don't confuse that with "blind" support or defence.

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 11:33PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But there was a prosecution in the case. A key difference. Prosecution and defence. Evidence tested on front of a judge and jury as per judicial norms. Cross examination and so on. All lacking in the documentary.

Do you think O.J Simpson was guilty? Judicial systems certainly are not infallible.

Gimme A Pound · 10-03-2019 11:38PM

The "marriage" thing with the rings is so ****ed up. Good Christ...

With regard to "Why come forward now?" or "Why did Wade retract his statement under oath in 2005?" - nothing wrong with asking those questions of course, but treating this information as sufficient grounds to deem the men's testimonies completely false, demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the abuse survivor is affected psychologically.

Integral to grooming/systematic sexual abuse is manipulation and mind control and an extreme power imbalance. Those elements lead to fear, denial, guilt, but also a kind of love, and seeking of approval. They loved Michael, and felt so happy that they were so important to him. And such was his manipulation that they even implied that they thought it sometimes felt good or at least "normal" at the time. They even felt jealous when Jackson lost interest in them and focused on other boys.

It's such a complex web that must be so difficult to work through in adulthood, and that complexity and nuance was articulated in the documentary in such a way that just couldn't be a fabrication imo.

10-03-2019 11:38PM

The jury was split in 2005. Some of the jurors knew he was a child molester but ultimately the 'not guilty' result was returned because they couldn't prove the abuse beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean he's innocent. Sexual abuse is notoriously difficult to prove.

Of the jurors who believed Jackson, one dismissed the testimony of Arvizo because he appeared to smirk at one point, and another had issues with him not being emotional enough. This is what shaped their thought process. Some people are idiots, and sometimes idiots sit on juries. One of them (the smirk woman) talked about how she shared a 'moment' with Jackson at the end of the trial. She was dazzled by him.

Wheeliebin30 · 10-03-2019 11:42PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

The jury was split in 2005. Some of the jurors knew he was a child molester but ultimately the 'not guilty' result was returned because they couldn't prove the abuse beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean he's innocent. Sexual abuse is notoriously difficult to prove.

Of the jurors who believed Jackson, one dismissed the testimony of Arvizo because he appeared to smirk at one point, and another had issues with him not being emotional enough. This is what shaped their thought process. Some people are idiots, and sometimes idiots sit on juries. One of them (the smirk woman) talked about how she shared a 'moment' with Jackson at the end of the trial. She was dazzled by him.

Guilty so

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments