Micky Jackson in trouble again

Scotty # · 14-03-2019 3:07pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Were the art books full of pictures of nude and semi-nude boys found in the library with his other million books (in which case I'd class them as an insignificant discovery) or in his living area (in which case I'd consider it quite a significant discovery)?

They were never introduced as evidence (if they ever existed), which probably tells you all you need to know.

It was a story published by US gossip site RadarOnline which said they'd been given access to results of a search warrant carried out by the cops before the original trial. The cops say everything they had was released to the media as part of the discovery process. Who ya gonna believe?

Scotty # · 14-03-2019 3:08pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Those particular books were found in a locked cabinet in jacksons bedroom. Off all the "millions" of books he allegedly owned, just those were treated differently.

Source??

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 3:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes.. the only one that may not be lying is the Australian mother..and maybe the wives..

The two boys, and the safechuck mother are obviously just bare faced lying..

Which is it? Your first bolded statement was very adamant.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 3:13pm

Scotty # wrote: »

Source??

It's from the police report. It's not radar online, it's the actual police evidence report. It's not fake. I'm sure the list has been posted several times already.

Flippyfloppy · 14-03-2019 3:13pm

frosty123 wrote: »

Wade ROBsome is a LIAR

there's no two ways about it...

cause he either lied in court in 2005 or he's lying now.....which is it?

Jesus wept.....

Scotty # · 14-03-2019 3:16pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's from the police report. It's not radar online, it's the actual police evidence report. It's not fake. I'm sure the list has been posted several times already.

Sorry but images of naked children found within Jacksons room would be pretty explosive (and damning) evidence yet this is the first I've heard of it and I watched the original trial pretty close. It's not in the police report and they were not forwarded as evidence (that I recall). Do you have a source or not?

tylercheribini · 14-03-2019 3:26pm

Scotty # wrote: »

Knor does it portray him as a paedophile making it completely and utterly irrelevant!

Taken in isolation, no, it does not prove he was a paedophile, but in the context of him sharing his bed with young boys in a supposedly non-sexual manner, why would this porn stash reportedly be found beside this same bed. It introduces a carnal element to the equation when the bedrock of Jackson's defence was the child-like-platonic-innocence of it all.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 3:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You can tell when someone is lying.. the look in their eyes.. the attempt to portray emotion.. the way they are framing what they say..
These people are lying..

I saw a body language expert (I’m a bit dubious about it as a science but gave it a shot) analyse Safechuck’s demeanour in the documentary. She had reservations about believing the two men going in but thinks his behaviour was consistent with telling the truth. She’s going to do the same for Robson. She was really thorough and it’s a long documentary so I can see why it would take a while to analyse each man.

Like I said, I’m not completely sold on people being body language experts but she had some interesting things to say. She also made a very good point that some of the things the men said would not be things someone would say if they were just after the filthy lucre. She said that they’d haved hammed up how disgusted they felt and how much they hated MJ. But both talked about how much they loved him back then and that they didn’t feel like it was abuse at the time. That was a really thought-provoking point and one I hadn’t really considered before.

But it helped crystallise in my mind why I found them so credible. I couldn’t put my finger on it before.

Boggles wrote: »

How is it any different to people on here categorically saying they are telling the truth?

I haven’t seen anyone on here as adamantly say they are completely sure they are telling the truth. Have you?

Boggles · 14-03-2019 3:39pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I have seen anyone on here as adamantly say they are completely sure they are telling the truth. Have you?

Sorry what?

You haven't seen anyone on here say they believe the the 2 lads?

Mr.Wemmick · 14-03-2019 3:42pm

tylercheribini wrote: »

Taken in isolation, no, it does not prove he was a paedophile, but in the context of him sharing his bed with young boys in a supposedly non-sexual manner, why would this porn stash reportedly be found beside this same bed. It introduces a carnal element to the equation when the bedrock of Jackson's defence was the child-like-platonic-innocence of it all.

Exactly!

It's separating a piece of info/part of an argument and isolating it, away from context to prove something didn't happen.

It defies logic and rounded thinking, and interestingly, it is similar to how Peados work, is it not? Isolating a child and making them feel they're to blame, responsible and unimportant.

Mr.Wemmick · 14-03-2019 3:51pm

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry what?

You haven't seen anyone on here say they believe the the 2 lads?

I think it is meant that the two lads were told/taught to lie by MJ, so it's apart of their world, embedded in their characters as a protection mechanism for MJ and themselves.

The consistency of their stories in the documentary, and all the other evidence regarding MJ and little boys, makes them believable, imo.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 4:04pm

Scotty # wrote: »

Sorry but images of naked children found within Jacksons room would be pretty explosive (and damning) evidence yet this is the first I've heard of it and I watched the original trial pretty close. It's not in the police report and they were not forwarded as evidence (that I recall). Do you have a source or not?

Now we've already had the argument that the state tried to introduce evidence that literally didn't exist but I'm not buying that.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

http://www.mjfacts.com/resources/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 4:07pm

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry what?

You haven't seen anyone on here say they believe the the 2 lads?

People have said they believe them on balance but aren’t conclusively saying that they completely 100% believe them. You couldn’t really say that. Most people here that believe them anyway, that I can see.

I believe them but if I was sitting on a jury, I would have a small percentage of doubt in my mind. A much bigger percentage of my mind would believe them but there would always be room for a small bit of doubt.

This was how some of the 2005 jurors felt. And is a good way to show how a documentary isn’t a trial.

Whereas there have been a number of MJ supporters on this thread who flat out don’t believe the men. They then say they are proven liars but then only focus on Robson, Safechuck being a more difficult person to discredit. Unless anyone here can conclusively say that MJ didn’t telephone Safechuck in 2005. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 4:21pm

Boggles wrote: »

Constant sustained bullshít for the soul reason of financial gain is not a side effect or a symptom of being abused.

They are a couple of grifters who are making an absolutely mockery out of actual abuse victims, IMO.

How glad I am to see comments like this get little appreciation.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 5:14pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This was how some of the 2005 jurors felt.

1 Juror, who was offered a 6 figure sum to write a book to change his mind.

He eventually had to sue the publishing company to get out of the deal. He also voted Not Guilty 10 times.

1 other Juror was offered the same, but she refused in the end.

All the Jurors interviewed after the trial said they had no doubt, the video has been posted several times all ready on thread.

Let's not try and rewrite history in the color brown.

Again this sums up the 2005 trial perfectly

Virtually every piece of [Sneddon’s] case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.”

or

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:

“you don’t need a law degree to understand this verdict. It is an absolute and complete victory for Michael Jackson, utter humiliation and defeat for Thomas Sneddon, the district attorney who has been pursuing Michael Jackson for more than a decade, who brought a case that was not one that this jury bought at all. This one’s over

Or when Jackson died.

“one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of human kind … I will miss him immeasurably.

That was the bould Wade.

My immeasurably I imagine he just meant 100s of millions.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 5:22pm

Boggles wrote: »

1 Juror, who was offered a 6 figure sum to write a book to change his mind.

He eventually had to sue the publishing company to get out of the deal. He also voted Not Guilty 10 times.

1 other Juror was offered the same, but she refused in the end.

All the Jurors interviewed after the trial said they had no doubt, the video has been posted several times all ready on thread.

Let's not try and rewrite history in the color brown.

Again this sums up the 2005 trial perfectly

or

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin:

So yes, as I said, some of the jurors felt he was guilty. You’ve just backed up what I said.

Have you come up with anything to disprove Safechuck’s claim that Jackson telephoned him in 2005 about the trial? People call Safechuck a proven liar based on him saying this but I haven’t seen anything that disproves it so far.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 5:33pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

So yes, as I said, some of the jurors felt he was guilty. You’ve just backed up what I said.

"Some" indicates more than 1. Just say 1 in the future - but you might mention the book deal too, you know just for a counter point.

The other lady that took the book deal but later refused is in the video on this thread.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Have you come up with anything to disprove Safechuck’s claim that Jackson telephoned him in 2005 about the trial? People call Safechuck a proven liar based on him saying this but I haven’t seen anything that disproves it so far.

It wasn't just he alleged rang him, it was Jackson, his Lawyers and his assistant.

But I have laid that out about a dozen times on thread all ready.

"Some" of those times were directed at you.

But I mean if you want to believe that Jackson in a trial that was more or less finished i.e. he had all ready won, was badgering Jimmy (drug abuser) and alleged victim to testify in a trial that he wasn't named in or was allowed to, then by all means fill those boots.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 5:36pm

Apparently Safechucks dad testified in front of the grand jury in 1993 that he saw Jackson kiss his son on the mouth multiple times but that there was nothing wrong with that because he believed his son when he says nothing sexual happened. How much more in plain sight can you get?

So now we have corroboration that Jackson went shopping for a wedding ring with James and that he was seen kissing him on the lips. And of course, the documented sleepovers and hotel room stays. And people still refuse to believe him?

Theboinkmaster · 14-03-2019 5:37pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently Safechucks dad testified in front of the grand jury in 1993 that he saw Jackson kiss his son on the mouth multiple times but that there was nothing wrong with that because he believed his son when he says nothing sexual happened. How much more in plain sight can you get?

So now we have corroboration that Jackson went shopping for a wedding ring with James and that he was seen kissing him on the lips. And of course, the documented sleepovers and hotel room stays. And people still refuse to believe him?

Links/evidence of this?

Boggles · 14-03-2019 5:41pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently Safechucks dad testified in front of the grand jury in 1993 that he saw Jackson kiss his son on the mouth multiple times but that there was nothing wrong with that because he believed his son when he says nothing sexual happened. How much more in plain sight can you get?

He testified that Jackson was completely innocent and if he thought for a second there was any truth to it he would have damaged Jackson.

So essentially another person under oath who knew him at the time saying Jackson was completely innocent.

How many is that now?

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 5:42pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Links/evidence of this?

There are photos of the documents in this article. If the only reason he thinks it's ok is because he believed his sons denials then it appears he was mistaken. No parent should have allowed any of this

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6774745/Michael-Jackson-accuser-James-Safechucks-father-tells-kiss-son-lips.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 5:42pm

Boggles wrote: »

"Some" indicates more than 1. Just say 1 in the future - but you might mention the book deal too, you know just for a counter point.

The other lady that took the book deal but later refused is in the video on this thread.

It wasn't just he alleged rang him, it was Jackson, his Lawyers and his assistant.

But I have laid that out about a dozen times on thread all ready.

"Some" of those times were directed at you.

But I mean if you want to believe that Jackson in a trial that was more or less finished i.e. he had all ready won, was badgering Jimmy (drug abuser) and alleged victim to testify in a trial that he wasn't named in or was allowed to, then by all means fill those boots.

Ah yes, they’re always money-grabbers, aren’t they? Whereas of course the people who profit from MJ’s estate couldn’t possibly have any ulterior motives in continuing to defend him, right?

And, no, you haven’t been able to disprove that MJ himself telephoned Safechuck ahead of the 2005 trial. You’ve said lots of things. None of them disprove his claim. Safechuck has been called a proven liar based on that. Where is the proof?

Boggles · 14-03-2019 5:44pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And, no, you haven’t been able to disprove that MJ telephoned Safechuck. You’ve said lots of things. None of them disprove his claim.

Of course it does, you can't be badgered into testifying in a trial that you can't testify in. What part of that is confusing you?

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 5:44pm

Boggles wrote: »

He testified that Jackson was completely innocent and if he thought for a second there was any truth to it he would have damaged Jackson.

So essentially another person under oath who knew him at the time saying Jackson was completely innocent.

How many is that now?

His belief was based on his son insisting that nothing happened. That's it. If Safechuck was lying about that then his belief was misplaced, right? How could be know what went on behind closed doors after he allowed his son to stay alone with Jackson?

What do you think about the old news reports I posted yesterday showing Jackson shopping for a "wedding ring" at a Zales with a boy who appears to be James Safechuck? I guess he really was playing the long game on this one eh? Setting it all up all those years ago . Or, maybe, just maybe, it actually happened

Boggles · 14-03-2019 5:46pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

His belief was based on his son insisting that nothing happened. That's it. If Safechuck was lying about that then his belief was misplaced, right? How could be know what went on behind closed doors after he allowed his son to stay alone with Jackson?

His belief was based on knowing Jackson who regularly stayed over at his house as well as asking his son quite strongly had anything happened.

So that's 2 no's.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 5:47pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What do you think about the old news reports I posted yesterday showing Jackson shopping for a "wedding ring" at a Zales with a boy who appears to be James Safechuck?

Not much TBH. I think it's a complete straw grab.

Call me Al · 14-03-2019 5:49pm

Scotty # wrote: »

Robson is 36 years old now. He changed his story in 2014 I believe? So if you are to believe him now, then you believe he was lying not telling the truth to his family for most of his adult life.

I can understand a child not telling the truth out of fear, pressure, or whatever. But I don't understand a grown man, right through their twenties and into their thirties, even after their abuser has died, still proclaiming their abusers innocence. He even went to work for MJ as a choreographer on the HISTORY show, right? How many victims actively seek employment with their rapist? Doesn't add up to me.

Then, he takes a lawsuit against the MJ Estate. He seeks over $1,000,000,000 on the basis that he's so psychologically damaged he can never work again. As soon as it's thrown out he's back to work.

This man is not a reliable witness!

Several years ago Michael O'Brien, a man well into pension years, bared his soul on Question Time on RTE about abuse he endured at the hands of the Rosminian order. He had previously publicly denied this and had gone so far as to praise the care they gave him. He actually thanked them live on the radio.
This 60 year delay in coming forward doesn't make him any less reliable as a witness. Neither these two gentlemen.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 5:49pm

Boggles wrote: »

His belief was based on knowing Jackson who regularly stayed over at his house as well as asking his son quite strongly had anything happened.

So that's 2 no's.

Plenty of people "know" people who commit terrible crimes but have no idea about it. They would probably swear up and down that the person is not capable of xyz. That doesn't mean anything. He believed his son and that's why. If his son wasn't telling him the truth then his belief was based on a lie. He wasn't there in the bedroom with them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 14-03-2019 5:51pm

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it does, you can't be badgered into testifying in a trial that you can't testify in. What part of that is confusing you?

No, it doesn’t. None of that precludes Jackson from personally telephoning Safechuck. Safechuck has been called a proven liar based on this claim. Proof is conclusive. Once again for the cheap seats, where is the proof that Jackson didn’t personally telephone Safechuck in 2005?

Scotty # · 14-03-2019 6:13pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Now we've already had the argument that the state tried to introduce evidence that literally didn't exist but I'm not buying that.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

http://www.mjfacts.com/resources/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

Yep that's pretty damning!! I couldn't remember any of that being shown in the trial though so had to dig around to find out a bit more about it... Apparently most of it was disregarded as being non-pornographic and not relevant and was not show at trial. Apparently too, a lot of it floating around the internet today was falsified after it was leaked. Huff post did a good article about it here > https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=TflG3OvMEaPMiQttHW-fMg

I'm still not convinced.

I also read, while researching the above, that Jordan Chandliers mum while giving evidence at the MJ trial, admitted on the stand that she hadn't seen or spoke to Jordan in 11 years! Very strange! Apparently Jordan was not pleased about being made lie by his parents!

I also read that Martin Bashir doesn't believe that MJ ever did anything criminal! I did find that surprising!

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments