Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 01:14PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

Seriously? I raise legitimate questions about Robson and Safechucks credibility and this is what you throw at me?

It doesn't matter if the accusations are murder, abuse, theft, etc etc, the credibility of witnesses must first be established beyond all doubt.

When their credibility is established beyond doubt, the next step is to look at the accusations and the evidence.

But so far we are stuck on the first hurdle, the credibility hurdle. Some people jumped that hurdle without bothering to even think about it.

Finally all abuse victims should come forward, but go to the police directly or indirectly (through a friend or relative) and then go through the courts if the claims are valid..

They shouldn't start off writing a book about it, then attempt and fail to sue the estate, then make a one sided documentary with no cross examination.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 01:15PM

micks_address wrote: »

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

Step Up 4.

He blamed Jackson for the reason he couldn't direct.

Jackson said to him when he was younger "I think you are going to direct a film someday", or something like that. Robson remembered this and had a break down because of the pressure or something.

His drug abuse and history of mental illness in his family had nothing to with it. It was all Jacksons fault for telling him over 20 years early in an off the cuff remark about directing a movie.

IAMAMORON · 12-03-2019 01:19PM

I finished watching both episodes last night. I can't say I was shocked, he was definitely odd.

For me there is way too much smoke in the argument for there not to be any fire. I don't buy the legal acquittal argument either, they probably have perjured themselves, one didn't btw, he just walked away and said no more. The dancer was probably terrified how his career would pan out if he hung him. He was doing too well for himself on the back of his relationship with Jackson.

It is entirely plausible that he never touched Macauley Culkin because he was to big a name. His main victims all appear to be nobodies who he groomed.

It is really really sad.

Jerichoholic · 12-03-2019 01:24PM

Boggles wrote: »

Step Up 4.

He blamed Jackson for the reason he couldn't direct.

Jackson said to him when he was younger "I think you are going to direct a film someday", or something like that. Robson remembered this and had a break down because of the pressure or something.

His drug abuse and history of mental illness in his family had nothing to with it. It was all Jacksons fault for telling him over 20 years early in an off the cuff remark about directing a movie.

Or maybe it's because he was abused by an evil paedophile since he was 7 years old?

I just can't decide.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 01:30PM

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Or maybe it's because he was abused by an evil paedophile since he was 7 years old?

Allegedly.

That's a word that should be at the forefront when you are dealing with the self titled "master of deception"

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 01:38PM

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson said to him when he was younger "I think you are going to direct a film someday", or something like that.

Probably just pillow talk

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 01:39PM

Boggles wrote: »

Allegedly.

That's a word that should be at the forefront when you are dealing with the self titled "master of deception"

Its a word that has been completely missing from this thread.

Until something is proven in court it remains alleged. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Unless innocent until proven guilty in a documentary becomes the new norm.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 01:42PM

Apparently Culkin confirmed the alarm outside the room, whilst in court. I don't like that alarm at all.

"There was like a walkway kind of thing, where if someone was approaching the door, it would kind of like 'ding-dong ding-dong'," Culkin said in court.

"When anyone would approach the room you'd hear this kind of... soft kind of alarm."

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 01:53PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its a word that has been completely missing from this thread.

Until something is proven in court it remains alleged. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Unless innocent until proven guilty in a documentary becomes the new norm.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is, as you say, the standard we are held to in a court of law. So, if I was on a jury in a Michael Jackson trial, I would be obliged legally to offer him presumption of innocence.

As a general observer, I am not held to the same standard. I can hold whatever opinion I like based on the information available to me.

I think OJ is a murderer and I think Michael Jackson is a child molester. And you can agree or disagree, that's fine. But freedom of expression is another important principle of democracy, I get to hold these opinions.

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 02:00PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is, as you say, the standard we are held to in a court of law. So, if I was on a jury in a Michael Jackson trial, I would be obliged legally to offer him presumption of innocence.

As a general observer, I am not held to the same standard. I can hold whatever opinion I like based on the information available to me.

I think OJ is a murderer and I think Michael Jackson is a child molester. And you can agree or disagree, that's fine. But freedom of expression is another important principle of democracy, I get to hold these opinions.

Oh dear. Lets see how long that stays on here

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 02:24PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Oh dear. Lets see how long that stays on here

Found innocent in a court of law but to hell with that, its someone's opinion on a website that really matters! I'm not going to go through the P Jackson trial again, we all know the guy was found innocent by a jury of his peers based on the evidence. So you have essentially libeled him. Well done!

#SueMePaddy

micks_address · 12-03-2019 02:25PM

Boggles wrote: »

Step Up 4.

He blamed Jackson for the reason he couldn't direct.

Jackson said to him when he was younger "I think you are going to direct a film someday", or something like that. Robson remembered this and had a break down because of the pressure or something.

His drug abuse and history of mental illness in his family had nothing to with it. It was all Jacksons fault for telling him over 20 years early in an off the cuff remark about directing a movie.

Thanks - whats confusing me is the documentary is a retelling of what wade said back in 2013 on tv.. why all the fuss now? I guess safechuck has added his story to it?

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 02:26PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Seriously? I raise legitimate questions about Robson and Safechucks credibility and this is what you throw at me?

It doesn't matter if the accusations are murder, abuse, theft, etc etc, the credibility of witnesses must first be established beyond all doubt.

What a load of horsesh1t.

So if the (alleged) victim has ever told a lie, they can't be believed??

Nobody has credibility beyond all doubt, that's an impossible standard to hold victims to.

And trying to hold victims to it is why so may rapists walk.

Dakota Dan · 12-03-2019 02:31PM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

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

Bubbles is not dead he’s in a retirement sanctuary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubbles_(chimpanzee)

jam_mac_jam · 12-03-2019 02:53PM

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Bubbles is not dead he’s in a retirement sanctuary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubbles_(chimpanzee)

Poor guy had to be rejected when he grew up too...

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 02:53PM

News report about Michael Jackson being caught buying a "wedding ring" with a young boy, who appears to be James Safechuck. Even the mall is located where Safechuck and his parents lived. Didn't he tell one specific story about being in a Zales and the police being called because of the weird disguise? This seems to corroborate that

https://youtu.be/RV7-HDO5zb0

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 02:56PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Poor guy had to be rejected when he grew up too...

All of his animals were abandoned when he left Neverland. Animal rights groups weren't happy about it

joe40 · 12-03-2019 02:58PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its a word that has been completely missing from this thread.

Until something is proven in court it remains alleged. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Unless innocent until proven guilty in a documentary becomes the new norm.

A documentary is not a court case.
In the real world everyone, including you, form opinions all the time. I can't remember the name of the famous Irish documentary on clerical abuse. It wasn't a court case, it didn't prove anyone guilt, but it started a national conversation and people reached opinions based on that documentary.

Posters here aren't stupid, everyone knows a court case is required to obtain a conviction and possibly send someone to jail.

However the documentary along with Jacksons behaviour is enough for people to decide what they believe.

A court case is not possible.

tylercheribini · 12-03-2019 02:59PM

and what about those seriously creepy faxes Jackson sent incessantly to the victims, I would count them as physical evidence. Jackson-ites literally want a video of the sexual acts before they even consider him guilty, hell, R.Kelly was actually caught on tape and still got off! If the American justice system has continuously proved, if you have the financial resources you can get away with anything.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 03:14PM

joe40 wrote: »

A court case is not possible.

Of course it is.

The allegations are against 2 companies who allegedly ran the most sophisticated pedophilia ring the world has ever known.

These people are still alive.

There has been no criminal complaint against them.

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 03:28PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

What a load of horsesh1t.

So if the (alleged) victim has ever told a lie, they can't be believed??

Nobody has credibility beyond all doubt, that's an impossible standard to hold victims to.

And trying to hold victims to it is why so may rapists walk.

If they tell lies specifically in relation to the case in question, their credibility is chipped away at. If they tell numerous lies it becomes impossible to tell when they are telling the truth.

This is not my opinion.

This is legal fact, take it up with a lawyer if you don't believe me.

A jury will not convict based on a witness whose credibility is highly questionable. The judge is also likely to throw out the case.

Which he did with one of these guys, before it even reached court! He said he had no credibility.

Passing off lies to gullible viewers on a tv show is one thing. Getting them past a judge, jury and defence lawyer in court is quite another.

But hey, because something was said in a one sided commercial film with no cross examination by a defence lawyer, it must be true. :rolleyes:

8-10 · 12-03-2019 03:32PM

tylercheribini wrote: »

and what about those seriously creepy faxes Jackson sent incessantly to the victims, I would count them as physical evidence.

Wasn't that a once off thing where he got a fax machine for the first time and Norma taught him how to use it and he was trying it out?

joe40 · 12-03-2019 03:52PM

Boggles wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

A court case is not possible.

Of course it is.

The allegations are against 2 companies who allegedly ran the most sophisticated pedophilia ring the world has ever known.

These people are still alive.

There has been no criminal complaint against them.

It will be up to the police and DA to proceed with a court case a sophisticated ring won't leave evidence.
There are individuals and groups getting away with crimes all the time that aren't detected.
All this is irrelevant to the question raised on relation to the behaviour of MJ.
That is the issue here

Boggles · 12-03-2019 04:05PM

joe40 wrote: »

It will be up to the police and DA to proceed with a court case a sophisticated ring won't leave evidence.

Nonsense. These people are still alive, times, dates, meetings, all specifics, how they operated, where they operated, etc, etc. It's exactly what they have alleged in there civil suit, so if it gets to civil court all evidence would have to be tested anyway. For a criminal trial the FBI would be more than capable.

It is up to the 2 lads to make a criminal complaint first though.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 04:32PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

News report about Michael Jackson being caught buying a "wedding ring" with a young boy, who appears to be James Safechuck. Even the mall is located where Safechuck and his parents lived. Didn't he tell one specific story about being in a Zales and the police being called because of the weird disguise? This seems to corroborate that

https://youtu.be/RV7-HDO5zb0

I just seen a thread on reddit about that video. Wonder if it is the same day that James spoke of. If true the Cheryl Crow speculation was a bit off

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 05:07PM

Journalist Sam Smyth has recalled the time he stayed in the same hotel as Michael Jackson and how he had concerns for "Little Jimmy" who was with him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nme.com/news/music/irish-journalist-recalls-time-michael-jackson-accuser-needed-rescuing-2459265/amp

tylercheribini · 12-03-2019 05:12PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Journalist Sam Smyth has recalled the time he stayed in the same hotel as Michael Jackson and how he had concerns for "Little Jimmy" who was with him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nme.com/news/music/irish-journalist-recalls-time-michael-jackson-accuser-needed-rescuing-2459265/amp

Careful now, certain thread members are extremely sensitive to link sharing. ðŸ˜‚

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 05:17PM

8-10 wrote: »

Wasn't that a once off thing where he got a fax machine for the first time and Norma taught him how to use it and he was trying it out?

No. Where did it say that? The family said that they would regularly be out and come home to a mountain of faxes. It was clearly an ongoing thing. Sure even what they showed on screen was more than could be considered reasonable for "trying it out" as a once off.

Jerichoholic · 12-03-2019 05:18PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If they tell lies specifically in relation to the case in question, their credibility is chipped away at. If they tell numerous lies it becomes impossible to tell when they are telling the truth.

This is not my opinion.

This is legal fact, take it up with a lawyer if you don't believe me.

A jury will not convict based on a witness whose credibility is highly questionable. The judge is also likely to throw out the case.

Which he did with one of these guys, before it even reached court! He said he had no credibility.

Passing off lies to gullible viewers on a tv show is one thing. Getting them past a judge, jury and defence lawyer in court is quite another.

But hey, because something was said in a one sided commercial film with no cross examination by a defence lawyer, it must be true. :rolleyes:

Hey guys Jimmy Saville was innocent because he wasn't found guilty in court!

**** sake man.

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 05:23PM

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Hey guys Jimmy Saville was innocent because he wasn't found guilty in court!

**** sake man.

We've been over the Saville v Jackson comparison repeatedly.

Hundreds of victims came forward against Saville after his death.

2 came forward after Jackson's death. 1 a self confessed master of deception, the other whose made claims in the past that turned out to be patently false. In other words both guys with question credibility who have avoided a criminal trial and police interviews like the plague. Except of course when Robson went out of his way to deliver the performance of a lifetime in 2005 to perjure himself, underlining his skills as a master of deception. They also claimed Jackson tried to turn them off girls, when the evidence is he set one of them up with his niece (an odd fact but doesn't tally with their version of events and a fact conveniently left out of the documentary as were any facts that might blow a hole in their story).

Next...

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments