Micky Jackson in trouble again

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 12-03-2019 12:01AM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Some of them sound like bots. They just reply with a big wall of text with all the same stuff. It's really odd.

And link-dumping. Lots and lots of link-dumping.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Is it allowed to describe someone as a bot on here?

Report the post I guess and find out.

12-03-2019 12:02AM

Ok, I'm done trying to reason with people who refuse to open their eyes. Enjoy your delusion.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 12:02AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

G'night!

Goodnight dude!

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 12:04AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Can you disprove Safechuck’s claim that MJ rang him?

We've been over this a million times on this thread. Safechuck was not going to be called as a witness, and was essentially barred from being a witness as the judge said no more witnesses.

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 12:06AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And link-dumping. Lots and lots of link-dumping.

Link dumping? WTF? I posted a quote and a link to the website as per forum rules.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 12-03-2019 12:10AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We've been over this a million times on this thread. Safechuck was not going to be called as a witness, was never going to be called as a witness. Why would MJ call someone who was effectively barred by the judge from being a witness?

Can you prove that Michael Jackson didn’t call Safechuck? As in, pick up the telephone and call him? Yes or no. This is Safechuck’s claim and what you have posted above doesn’t disprove it.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Link dumping? WTF? I posted a quote and a link to the website as per forum rules.

You... you know that you’re not the only poster on this thread defending MJ? Sligeach is mostly who I was referring to there. Jays, self-absorbed or what?

BorneTobyWilde · 12-03-2019 12:13AM

How much money will the Jackson Estate have to give to these two con artists to shut them up for good, can imagine they are in talks as we speak.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 12:16AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

How much money will the Jackson Estate have to give to these two con artists to shut them up for good, can imagine they are in talks as we speak.

I reckon the Jackson estate are experts at it by now

fryup · 12-03-2019 12:20AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

How much money will the Jackson Estate have to give to these two con artists to shut them up for good, can imagine they are in talks as we speak.

the jackson estate should fight it tooth & nail.....cause if they don't other charlatans will chance their arm

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 12:36AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We've been over this a million times on this thread. Safechuck was not going to be called as a witness, and was essentially barred from being a witness as the judge said no more witnesses.

And when did the judge decide this? Before or after Jackson called him? You know the dates yeah? Maybe Jackson called him personally to see if he was on side in case he was needed. It's really not that unbelievable. There's no way you can state with certainty that Jackson didn't call him is there?

We've also been over a million times that safechucks mother knew about the abuse before 2009. But doesn't stop you and others trotting out the line that she was lying about being happy Jackson died because she hadn't a clue it happened. She did

Also the Jackson's latest defence is apparently that it couldn't have happened because Wade was in a long term relationship with Michael's niece, set up by Michael himself. I saw it mentioned earlier but didn't realise they are talking from the age of 9-18.Wtf, 9?! Just making themselves look even weirder tbh. Who "sets up" 9 year olds up and describes it as a relationship and "dating". The only thing that should be being set up at that age is playdates. That's. Not. Normal. And it doesn't disprove anything at all.

Kimbot · 12-03-2019 09:02AM

MOD Deebles McBeebles thread ban is now up and can post again in this thread.

Lillyfae · 12-03-2019 09:43AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

his own mother.

See I don't actually care what she thinks or says about him because she gave a dodgy, almost 40 year old man unfettered access to her own child for a few flights and some nights of five star accomodation

Boggles · 12-03-2019 10:38AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Also the Jackson's latest defence is apparently that it couldn't have happened because Wade was in a long term relationship with Michael's niece, set up by Michael himself. I saw it mentioned earlier but didn't realise they are talking from the age of 9-18.Wtf, 9?! Just making themselves look even weirder tbh. Who "sets up" 9 year olds up and describes it as a relationship and "dating". The only thing that should be being set up at that age is playdates. That's. Not. Normal.

It's not the "latest defence" defense is it? It is a person who is still alive who knew both Jackson and Robson very well, her story is pretty key TBF.

Anyway, she explained it yesterday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XutM3RmEUEo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And it doesn't disprove anything at all.

Didn't Wade say Jackson actively discouraged him away from girls?

More baloney it would seem.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 11:07AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

.Wtf, 9?! Just making themselves look even weirder tbh. Who "sets up" 9 year olds up and describes it as a relationship and "dating". The only thing that should be being set up at that age is playdates. That's. Not. Normal. And it doesn't disprove anything at all.

Yeah they come out with some wierd stuff.

Watching an interview with Taj Jackson and the interviewer was saying, and everyone knew Michael was sleeping alone with young boys? Taj interjects, "and girls". Haha

Taj is defending Michael in the above interview

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 11:46AM

Reading an article this morning about his marriage to Debbie Rowe. Some more interesting reading if true!

One line, "His best man was an eight-year-old boy". Surely not!

ElBastardo1 · 12-03-2019 11:47AM

After reading through the thread i'm actually amazed at how people are so sure he did and didn't touch the kids. My opinion is there is a strong possibility that he behaved inappropriately with children and that is based off an opinion from listening to the two guys in the documentary and also the other testimonies of previous victims, but in saying that I wouldn't argue over at as at this point the only people that actually knows the truth are a small handful of people. If there is one thing we have learned from this is celebs, no matter how famous should not be sleeping in bedrooms with kids.

Anyone defending him needs to take a step back and think, if a gun was put to your head would you put your life on the line for your belief he is innocent. Remember, this a guy who completely disfigured his face and repeatadly claimed he never had work done to lighten his skin and claimed he only had a few minor surgeries on his nose. He was a compulsive liar.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 12:01PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And when did the judge decide this? Before or after Jackson called him? You know the dates yeah? Maybe Jackson called him personally to see if he was on side in case he was needed. It's really not that unbelievable. There's no way you can state with certainty that Jackson didn't call him is there?

He alleges under oath Jackson called him and threatened him to testify before the trial, he alleges under oath that Jackson's lawyers and then his assistant called him during the trial and tried to intimidate him into testifying, he then alleges under oath that Jackson rang him "towards the end of the trial" and wanted to meet him to convince him to testify.

Safechuck under oath stated the reason they needed him to testify was because a former employee was making an allegation against Jackson.

That allegation was that the employee saw Jackson and Macaulay Culkin alone playing a video game and Jackson was abusing him. Safechuck was not part of the 2005 trial, he was not named as an alleged victim.

The only 3 alleged victims allowed by the Judge early on in trial were Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes.

So he was being pressured to give evidence in a trial that had nothing to do with him and he was precluded from participating in anyway. It's farcical nonsense.

So can we kill that myth (lies) once and for all please?

SusieBlue · 12-03-2019 12:03PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It's 30-40 years later at this stage. So you've undermined your own argument. Jackson was at his peak from 1980 to 1995. As for victims waiting 30 years after someones death or publicity around them, horse manure.

Here's Stuart Hall's example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

Weinstein, Saville, Clifford, Harris and all those found guilty were the same. Initial media reports followed by victims coming forward in numbers after the publicity.

In MJs case, since his death we've had (A) The self confessed Master of Deception Wade Robson whose own mother said he should get an Oscar for lying. But hey you all know him better than his own mother.
And (B) Safechuck, a guy claimed to have been called to testify in 2005 even though this is patently false and whose mother claimed to have celebrated when Jackson died in 2009 because he couldn't "hurt any more kids" even though she knew nothing about the abuse until 2013.

And for the umpteenth time, why are people accepting one sided untested testimony as FACT? Untested allegations are not fact, they have to be tried and proven in court. And they have to pass by a judge, jury and defence lawyer. This is page 1 paragraph 1 of legal justice that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

Your dismissive, one dimensional ignorant view of how adults who were sexually abused as children should conduct themselves is extremely frustrating to read.

There is no handbook "one size fits all" approach to dealing with such trauma. Some people never disclose what happened to them for the rest of their lives.

Maybe do some actual research into it, because your current narrow minded theory of what YOU think abuse victims should or shouldn't do is not only wildly inaccurate, its also a clear attempt to shoehorn their behaviour into "proof" that they must be lying.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 12:15PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Some people never disclose what happened to them for the rest of their lives.

Yeah, that's true. Safechuck under oath kept repeating his one fear, the one thing he dreaded the one thing that gave him panic attacks, drove him to drugs and depression was if his "relationship" with Jackson was ever made public. If anyone every found out.

That's until he turns on the telly in May 2013 and sees the "master of deception" telling a talk show host how many 100s of millions he was inline to collect.

Jimmy was off to Wades lawyers like a rat up a drain pipe, any notion of "fear" evaporated like it never existed.

The 2 boys are selling a pup in order to enrich themselves. It's as clear as can be.

It has escalated so much now they gone beyond the point of no return.

A far cry from when Robson sealed his deposition in the hope that if he kept it all quite he would get thrown a few million and his wife wouldn't leave him.

It is now quite the snowball, but of course this is no where near the end, people may have to get back on the stand and start telling some truths under oath and more importantly cross examination.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 12:17PM

The alarm system for people coming toward the bedroom, really jumps out at me. Along with the being alone there with children.

frosty123 · 12-03-2019 12:44PM

Boggles wrote: »

It is now quite the snowball, but of course this is no where near the end, people may have to get back on the stand and start telling some truths under oath and more importantly cross examination.

it doesn't have to go to court......all is needed is to have them on live TV with an experienced interviewer asking them probing questions...and it will all fall apart

Boggles · 12-03-2019 12:50PM

frosty123 wrote: »

it doesn't have to go to court......all is needed is to have them on live TV with an experienced interviewer asking them probing questions...and it will all fall apart

You mean not like Oprah, who showed the unashamedly biased "documentary" to an audience of 100 abuse survivors and then straight after it "interviewed" them?

Powerful journalism.

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

Dakota Dan · 12-03-2019 12:52PM

I wonder could bubbles shed any light on the shenanigans.

Deebles McBeebles · 12-03-2019 12:54PM

Dakota Dan wrote: »

I wonder could bubbles shed any light on the shenanigans.

I hate to tell you this, Dan.....Bubbles is dead.

micks_address · 12-03-2019 12:56PM

Finished part 2 last night. What was the big budget movie wade was hired to direct before he had his breakdown?

Gwynplaine · 12-03-2019 01:02PM

She eat my banana, but there ain't a inch a hair on her god damn body, y'all know what I'm saying.

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 01:07PM

Boggles wrote: »

He alleges under oath Jackson called him and threatened him to testify before the trial, he alleges under oath that Jackson's lawyers and then his assistant called him during the trial and tried to intimidate him into testifying, he then alleges under oath that Jackson rang him "towards the end of the trial" and wanted to meet him to convince him to testify.

Safechuck under oath stated the reason they needed him to testify was because a former employee was making an allegation against Jackson.

That allegation was that the employee saw Jackson and Macaulay Culkin alone playing a video game and Jackson was abusing him. Safechuck was not part of the 2005 trial, he was not named as an alleged victim.

The only 3 alleged victims allowed by the Judge early on in trial were Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes.

So he was being pressured to give evidence in a trial that had nothing to do with him and he was precluded from participating in anyway. It's farcical nonsense.

So can we kill that myth (lies) once and for all please?

While it is indeed farcical nonsense, it ultimately is the word of a living guy (Safechuck) against the word of a dead guy (Jackson). Whose word is going to win in that situation?!

You can essentially say anything about a dead person and a lot of the time (not always) there is no way of proving its true or false if there are no independent witnesses.

Jerichoholic · 12-03-2019 01:09PM

Watched the first part.

Jesus Christ almighty!

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 01:09PM

micks_address wrote: »

Finished part 2 last night. What was the big budget movie wade was hired to direct before he had his breakdown?

Very good question!

Space Dog · 12-03-2019 01:12PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Very good question!

According to Wikipedia it was Step Up Revolution

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments