Micky Jackson in trouble again

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 7:05pm

Interesting that a lot of the people involved in the accusations are not thought to be credible.

And i would agree they are people who live by different morals to how I was raised. (the thoughts of my folks letting me sleep with Michael jackson! It just wouldn't happen)

I wonder is it a common thing for child abusers to target children in these kind of situations you know? As it would certainly help in later discrediting them all.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 7:07pm

The Nal wrote: »

"Presumed innocent" doesnt exist. If a defendant is presumed innocent they wouldnt be charged and in court and going back to jail every night in a lot of cases.

Innocent until proven guilty does exist. Semantics I know but its worth noting.

They mean the exact same things.

Taking your point if someone is Innocent until proven guilty they shouldn't be remanded in jail either.

fryup · 13-03-2019 7:08pm

fryup wrote: »

i wish jordy chandler would come clean about this, he's an adult now with an adult conscience.... or is he bound by confidentiality?

The Nal wrote: »

Nope. They tried to find him for Leaving Neverland but couldn't.

maybe he didn't want anything to do with it......he had enough of lying

Boggles · 13-03-2019 7:13pm

The Nal wrote: »

Nope. They tried to find him for Leaving Neverland but couldn't.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

Apparently the FBI did find him in 2004, he told them piss off basically.

As for Finding Neverland, I have no idea. Robson did threaten him and his family to show up and give deposition though.

He left the country again.

fryup · 13-03-2019 7:17pm

^^^^^^^^^

can he tell all in another jurisdiction i wonder?

Atoms for Peace · 13-03-2019 7:32pm

Over two hundred pages and I still don't think the two claiments are very credible. MJ was obviously a very sick individual.
But I don't think he was same type of aggressive perp like saville, the abuse he carried out was inabled by those who wanted to exploit MJ's wealth and fame, even if it meant using their own children as bait.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-03-2019 7:34pm

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.

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.

Why would there be a cross-examination in a documentary?

I never seen that in any documentary I’ve ever watched. Naturally enough, because documentaries aren’t trials.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 7:39pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why would there be a cross-examination in a documentary? I never seen that in any documentary I’ve ever watched. Naturally enough, because documentaries aren’t trials.

Well obviously he didn't mean cross examination in a legal sense.

But you have never seen a documentary where someones story has been challenged either by the person making the documentary or by some other person interviewed?

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 7:48pm

I see Al Jean has spoken out as to the reasoning behind removing the episode featuring the voice of Micheal.

“It’s something I agree with completely,” Jean said about pulling the episode. “What saddens me is, if you watch that documentary–which I did, and several of us here did–and you watch that episode, honestly, it looks like the episode was used by Michael Jackson for something other than what we’d intended it. It wasn’t just a comedy to him, it was something that was used as a tool. And I strongly believe that. That, to me, is my belief, and it’s why I think removing it is appropriate.”

Jean continued, “I lose a little bit of money financially, it’s not something that’s great personally to lose one of the most successful things I ever did, but I totally think it’s the right move. I don’t believe in going through and making judgments on every guest star and saying ‘this one was bad, that one was bad,’ but the episode itself has a false purpose, and that’s what I object to about it now.”

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-03-2019 7:50pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well obviously he didn't mean cross examination in a legal sense.

He didn’t?

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.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 7:53pm

Boggles wrote: »

If you remove the "presumption of innocence" from any trial, that means the defendant has to prove themselves innocent, if the defendant proves themselves innocent then you are right back to your (flawed) logical conclusion that the alleged victim is a liar.

If the defendant proves themselves innocent by the end of the trial, that’s different to being presumed innocent at the beginning.

My point is nobody should be presuming anything at the beginning of a trial before any evidence has been presented.

It’s a pretty radical approach, it requires a change in mentality. I’m not sure how it would apply across the wider justice system but I think it’s very pertinent where an alleged crime is one person’s word against another’s.

Just because things have been done in a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t be reformed.

The current system makes it too hard to prosecute rape and sexual assault.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 7:54pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

He didn’t?

No not by the first thing you posted. Which is what I replied to.

But I think you are just being completely pedantic now.

It's obvious what he meant.

I think he also said he was taking a break from the thread.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 8:17pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

My point is nobody should be presuming anything at the beginning of a trial before any evidence has been presented.

It would be utter madness to get rid of presumption of innocence, it's the corner stone of any functioning justice system. What if you were 100% innocent but couldn't prove it?

If there is barriers to reporting or convicting certain crimes, they should be looked at and dealt with, eroding fundamental human rights shouldn't because that is a slippery road none of us want to go down.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 8:18pm

I see Transport for London will be removing the MJ is innocent ads from their buses.

"They have been rejected due to the public sensitivity and concern around their content." - Tfl

Apparently they were crowdfunded using a page setup by Big Brother UK contestant and Jackson fanatic Seany O'Kane
and it states that they "know he is innocent".

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 9:18pm

Boggles wrote: »

It would be utter madness to get rid of presumption of innocence, it's the corner stone of any functioning justice system. What if you were 100% innocent but couldn't prove it?

The prosecution would still have to prove their case.

You think I'm suggesting removing presumption of innocence and in the vacuum presumption of guilt would take its place.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm suggesting reframing it as a right to a fair trial. That's the principle that underpins 'presumption of innocence', but it's all gone a bit wrong when it's one person's word against another. Because right now, the system favours the accused. I'm not suggesting a system where the system favours the alleged victim.

I'm suggesting a better balance of both parties' rights.

We will never have a perfect system, but we could definitely do better than what we have got now.

8-10 · 13-03-2019 9:53pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And the lead investigator say that there was a match. And Tom sneddon in the court filings here

Tom Sneddon is a cold man

joeguevara · 14-03-2019 2:11am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The prosecution would still have to prove their case.

You think I'm suggesting removing presumption of innocence and in the vacuum presumption of guilt would take its place.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm suggesting reframing it as a right to a fair trial. That's the principle that underpins 'presumption of innocence', but it's all gone a bit wrong when it's one person's word against another. Because right now, the system favours the accused. I'm not suggesting a system where the system favours the alleged victim.

I'm suggesting a better balance of both parties' rights.

We will never have a perfect system, but we could definitely do better than what we have got now.

Firstly the system doesn’t favourite the accused. Oh my god can you begin to understand what it would be like if an innocent person was accused of any sexual offense and they are being tried. Do you think the system favors them?

You say you are not suggesting a system that favors the victim but in fact you are. In all fairness I understand where you are coming from but no matter what system you have the accused is fcuked. Even if innocent their life will never be the same.

The system only works if the accused is guilty. At present the presumption of innocence while. Might get an innocent person off, their life will invariably be ruined by a trial. I don’t care what anyone says but I’ve seen it.

You have put forward an assertion about a fair trial. Can you expand, while at the centre of your argument, have an innocent person as the protagonist And see how it works.

By the way, I am not saying MJ is innocent or guilty. I’m just using a hypothetical.

Realt Dearg Sec · 14-03-2019 2:23am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Boggles wrote: »

If you remove the "presumption of innocence" from any trial, that means the defendant has to prove themselves innocent, if the defendant proves themselves innocent then you are right back to your (flawed) logical conclusion that the alleged victim is a liar.

If the defendant proves themselves innocent by the end of the trial, that’s different to being presumed innocent at the beginning.

My point is nobody should be presuming anything at the beginning of a trial before any evidence has been presented.

It’s a pretty radical approach, it requires a change in mentality. I’m not sure how it would apply across the wider justice system but I think it’s very pertinent where an alleged crime is one person’s word against another’s.

Just because things have been done in a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t be reformed.

The current system makes it too hard to prosecute rape and sexual assault.

Never has the phrase "hard cases make for bad law" been more appropriate than in response to this post.

Prosecuting crimes is supposed to be hard. If you're ever wrongly accused of one you'll be glad of the fact.

Irish Guitarist · 14-03-2019 2:45am

If no one had ever accused him of abuse I'd still think he was a paedophile based on the way he was obsessed with children. It's creepy as fuck the way at the height of his fame he was giving all his attention to this kid, who apparently played Webster on an American sitcom, and pretty much ignored Brooke Shields.

Then years later he saw Home Alone and decided he just had to 'befriend' Macaualy Culkin. What normal man does that? He probably could have gotten anyone to meet him. Instead of a woman (or an adult male if that was his thing) he decides he wants to meet a ten year old and have sleepovers with him. Imagine if you asked a friend what they'd do if they became rich and they replied "I'd start meeting my favourite child actors and sleep with them". Would anyone really not consider that fucking creepy?

Even if I had never heard anything about him molesting children I'd still be convinced he had an abnormal interest in them.

Dontfadeaway · 14-03-2019 2:55am

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If no one had ever accused him of abuse I'd still think he was a paedophile based on the way he was obsessed with children. It's creepy as fuck the way at the height of his fame he was giving all his attention to this kid, who apparently played Webster on an American sitcom, and pretty much ignored Brooke Shields.

Then years later he saw Home Alone and decided he just had to 'befriend' Macaualy Culkin. What normal man does that? He probably could have gotten anyone to meet him. Instead of a woman (or an adult male if that was his thing) he decides he wants to meet a ten year old and have sleepovers with him. Imagine if you asked a friend what they'd do if they became rich and they replied "I'd start meeting my favourite child actors and sleep with them". Would anyone really not consider that fucking creepy?

Even if I had never heard anything about him molesting children I'd still be convinced he had an abnormal interest in them.

I agree, it's not normal. That boy is defending him though.

Irish Guitarist · 14-03-2019 3:05am

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

I agree, it's not normal. That boy is defending him though.

When I say I'd think he was a paedophile I don't mean I'd necessarily think he'd abused anyone. I'd suspect at the very least though that he was getting a sexual thrill out of being in the same bed as these children.

My theory is that he enjoyed being in bed with children and thought that was enough to satisfy his urges but eventually did more.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 3:09am

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Ah jaysus, read it up - this thread is going round in circles.

Example - Wade Robson testified under oath MJ never touched him.

Where has James Safechuck been proven to be a liar? Forget Robson for a second. Both men have continually been called proven liars. When and how was Safechuck proven to be a liar?

Safechuck said that Jackson telephoned him in 2005 about the trial. This seems to be what people think he is lying about. But so far I’ve seen nothing to disprove his claim that Jackson telephoned him.

hetuzozaho · 14-03-2019 4:32am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Where has James Safechuck been proven to be a liar? Forget Robson for a second. Both men have continually been called proven liars. When and how was Safechuck proven to be a liar?

Safechuck said that Jackson telephoned him in 2005 about the trial. This seems to be what people think he is lying about. But so far I’ve seen nothing to disprove his claim that Jackson telephoned him.

They say something along the lines of:

hetuzozaho · 14-03-2019 4:37am

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

When I say I'd think he was a paedophile I don't mean I'd necessarily think he'd abused anyone. I'd suspect at the very least though that he was getting a sexual thrill out of being in the same bed as these children.

My theory is that he enjoyed being in bed with children and thought that was enough to satisfy his urges but eventually did more.

People defending him will point to his child like innocence. A child in a man's body. A man that had no childhood etc.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 5:29am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

People defending him will point to his child like innocence. A child in a man's body. A man that had no childhood etc.

Yes, poor innocent childlike michael. Yet on the other hand they have difficulty accepting that actual children, you know the ones that are children in children's bodies, might be groomed or coerced into certain behaviours and statements. Nope, that's completely unbelievable

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 14-03-2019 5:33am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Absolutely, I think particularly in rape trials (and perhaps in others) that the principal of "presumption of innocence" should be replaced with "a presumption of fairness" i.e. that both parties have rights, the defendant has the right to a fair trial and the prosecution has a right to seek justice within the confines of the law.

Here's why: In a rape trial if you presume the defendant is innocent, you must logically presume the accuser is lying. That's a bad place to start. I think at the beginning of the trial we shouldn't be presuming anything about anyone, but we should commit to vindicating the rights of all those involved.

So we don't say, "we're going to presume you're innocent" because we have nothing to base that assumption on. Instead we say "you are entitled to a fair trial, and we will vindicate that right".

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with your post, as it will undermine one of the core principles of the legal system. The presumption of innocence in court has to be assumed for the defendant from the start always. Blackstone's ratio.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Having said that I'm firmly in the Michael Jackson abused children side of the argument.

Mr.Wemmick · 14-03-2019 6:24am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

They say something along the lines of:

In the documentary, when Safechuck talks about MJ calling him, it's quite clear that MJ is checking him out to see if he still supports him, will keep the secret.. and when Safechuck said he will not, that is when MJs loses it and threatens that they will go after him, his family, make his life hell, etc. Safechuck then confirms to MJ he isn't going to say anything to anyone and ends the conversation.

The trial meant it was all out, in the public eye again, and MJ was checking for loose ends.

Hearing what MJ's lawyer said at the time of the trial, his threat to any boys and their families was quite scary and consistent with what Safechuck says about his telephone conversation with MJ. That lawyer knew there were other kids, other families.

His threat was a warning shot across the bow: don't even think about coming after our precious, innocent, yet very powerful Michael or you will be destroyed.

hetuzozaho · 14-03-2019 7:00am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, poor innocent childlike michael. Yet on the other hand they have difficulty accepting that actual children, you know the ones that are children in children's bodies, might be groomed or coerced into certain behaviours and statements. Nope, that's completely unbelievable

Yeah I dunno maybe he was childlike and innocent. I hope so. Otherwise it's such a mess.

Its the demanding of court rooms and credibility and then... but Peter Pan... that I find a bit strange.

tigger123 · 14-03-2019 9:42am

Finally got around to watching Part 2 last night, and it's pretty harrowing.

In order to believe that Safechuck and Robson are lying, you have to also believe that they're lying to their families and they're totally fine with the devastating impact those lies are having on their loved ones.

I believe them.

It's also disappointing for me as a former fan of MJ; Off The Wall and Thriller were favourites of mine. But so it goes. I don't think I could listen to his music again.

14-03-2019 10:07am

I'm watching part 2 now. They are all lying through their teeth..

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments