Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles · 05-04-2019 02:23PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

WUM territory here,

You certainly are, it would seem.

But I understand why you are not prepared to answer because it because it further erodes the credibility of Robson and Safechuck, I imagine it is one of the main reasons why it didn't even get the briefest of mentions in the "documentary".

There is absolutely no way that people working for Jackson knowingly operated a sophisticated pedophilia ring with the sole intention of picking and delivering young boys for him to rape. It's beyond farcical and I imagine the appeal Judge will make short thrift of it.

If there was even an once of truth to it, they would have at least kept Robson sweet, failing that they would have definitely paid him off on the quiet, as I said early it wasn't just financial at that stage people could have went to prison for the rest of their lives potentially.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 02:26PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Would you agree its horrific he slept with those kids alone? The one thing we all agree is fact.

Horrific, no. If you listen to the people who spent time with him they vehemently claim it was all based on 100% innocence.

Weird and inappropriate, definitely.

But I think it is unjust to equate that with anal rape and forced oral sex, what do you think?

By the way for anyone watching that's how you answer a specific question.

hetuzozaho · 05-04-2019 02:30PM

Boggles wrote: »

Horrific, no.

And i guess that's were we've disagreed all along.

Different strokes and all that, all the best!

Boggles · 05-04-2019 02:34PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

And i guess that's were we've disagreed all along.

Different strokes and all that, all the best!

I don't really see how I am outright disagreeing with you but yeah all the best, different strokes, etc.

hetuzozaho · 05-04-2019 02:45PM

Boggles wrote: »

I don't really see how I am outright disagreeing with you but yeah all the best, different strokes, etc.

Ha yeah, you're correct I'm not explaining it well.

Its just you've said say, if it's proven that he touched them inappropriately once in bed that the Jackson empire or whatever should be destroyed or whatever.

So your always looking for proof for the abuse allegations, which I don't see how we will get that. Because you want the proof of the inappropriate touching to serve the punishment. Which is perfectly reasonable.

But I'm already horrified that the stuff we know happened, happened. If you get me. So we are at different places. So, not necessarily disagreeing as you correctly say. Just pointless dissecting the thing we can never prove when we have agreed facts I find Horrific and a form of child abuse(imo) , but you find wierd.

ToBeFrank123 · 05-04-2019 02:59PM

As I posted before, Wade Robson gave 4 different versions of how he was first abused by Jackson in drafts of his book. That's 4 different versions. All must be true according to his supporters!

In the documentary he said he was abused when Jackson and himself remained behind while his family went to the Grand Canyon. His mother has given sworn testimony on two occasions that her son was with her at the Grand Canyon. Sworn testimony which I am inclined to agree with given that Robson had to repeatedly ask his mother if certain events happened when he was a child.

Safechuck said the abuse by Jackson ended when he was 14. Reed says it ended when he was 16 or 17. They can't even agree their stories among themselves.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of inconsistencies.

As the judge who threw out Robsons's case said, the guy told so many lies, no rational jurer could believe him

So who are you going to believe? An impartial professional court judge? Or a biased documentary maker like Reed who only puts forward one side?

The gullibility of some people who never question Robson or Safechucks accounts is actually disturbing. Critical faculties seem to be completely gone from the "Netflix" generation who assume that because its on tv it must be true.

The proper place to put anyone on trial is in court, not a one sided documentary.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 03:23PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As I posted before, Wade Robson gave 4 different versions of how he was first abused by Jackson in drafts of his book. That's 4 different versions. All must be true according to his supporters!

In the documentary he said he was abused when Jackson and himself remained behind while his family went to the Grand Canyon. His mother has given sworn testimony on two occasions that her son was with her at the Grand Canyon. Sworn testimony which I am inclined to agree with given that Robson had to repeatedly ask his mother if certain events happened when he was a child.

Safechuck said the abuse by Jackson ended when he was 14. Reed says it ended when he was 16 or 17. They can't even agree their stories among themselves.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of inconsistencies.

As the judge who threw out Robsons's case said, the guy told so many lies, no rational jurer could believe him

So who are you going to believe? An impartial professional court judge? Or a biased documentary maker like Reed who only puts forward one side?

The gullibility of some people who never question Robson or Safechucks accounts is actually disturbing. Critical faculties seem to be completely gone from the "Netflix" generation who assume that because its on tv it must be true.

The proper place to put anyone on trial is in court, not a one sided documentary.

I’ve yet to see a source for this. Have you got a good one? It’s been oft-repeated that a judge said this but I haven’t found any good source to back it up, as of yet. I’ve only seen the statute of limitations referenced. I’m not saying a good source doesn’t exist, I just haven’t personally found one.

ToBeFrank123 · 05-04-2019 04:42PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ve yet to see a source for this. Have you got a good one? It’s been oft-repeated that a judge said this but I haven’t found any good source to back it up, as of yet. I’ve only seen the statute of limitations referenced. I’m not saying a good source doesn’t exist, I just haven’t personally found one.

Charles Thomson, a journalist, is the main source.

His Twitter is pretty good at debunking these guys stories.

https://twitter.com/CEThomson

Their stories have more holes than swiss cheese.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 05:45PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Charles Thomson, a journalist, is the main source.

His Twitter is pretty good at debunking these guys stories.

https://twitter.com/CEThomson

Their stories have more holes than swiss cheese.

Thomson interpreted a ruling that way. I’ve read about that. I thought somebody somewhere must have had something more concrete seeing as it’s always phrased as “the judge said” or similar which is misleading. Interpretations are fine so why can’t people just be up front about it?

05-04-2019 08:47PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As I posted before, Wade Robson gave 4 different versions of how he was first abused by Jackson in drafts of his book. That's 4 different versions. All must be true according to his supporters!

In the documentary he said he was abused when Jackson and himself remained behind while his family went to the Grand Canyon. His mother has given sworn testimony on two occasions that her son was with her at the Grand Canyon. Sworn testimony which I am inclined to agree with given that Robson had to repeatedly ask his mother if certain events happened when he was a child.

Safechuck said the abuse by Jackson ended when he was 14. Reed says it ended when he was 16 or 17. They can't even agree their stories among themselves.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of inconsistencies.

As the judge who threw out Robsons's case said, the guy told so many lies, no rational jurer could believe him

So who are you going to believe? An impartial professional court judge? Or a biased documentary maker like Reed who only puts forward one side?

The gullibility of some people who never question Robson or Safechucks accounts is actually disturbing. Critical faculties seem to be completely gone from the "Netflix" generation who assume that because its on tv it must be true.

The proper place to put anyone on trial is in court, not a one sided documentary.

And equally, not a lawyer-wannabee on a "social & fun" chat thread.

joeguevara · 05-04-2019 10:53PM

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

Laois_Man · 06-04-2019 12:32AM

Has everyone seen the documentary refuting the Leaving Neverland production?

AllForIt · 06-04-2019 01:21AM

joeguevara wrote: »

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

The thing that I get off this thread thread is a desperate desire that the allegations are true. And in having such spend hours trying to convince others it is true as per their desire.

Ppl keep saying is "if there is one thing that we should all agree on is that sleeping in a bed with children is wrong". I think everyone agrees with that. But on this ' all agree on' theme we also have to acknowledge that MJ whether child abuser or not, had one of the most unusual childhoods in terms of stardom that I can think of. Not that I'm saying that if he is guilty that that would be a mitigating factor.

His life was highly unusual from the day he started to perform. His music was unique and his dancing was completely original (of course he was influenced by earlier performers). In the history of musical 'stars', there was noone as 'big', as MJ. If on a stardom scale MJ was a 10, the next on the spectrum would be an 8. That applies whether you were into him or not. Personally as far as his musical heights are concerned I feet he dropped off from his BAD album onwards, all of his best stuff was pre that album. Had top hits since then nonetheless.

All I'm saying is that the whole MJ phenomenon is one that I don't think we'll ever see again. Especially as any tom dick and harry can become famous by being an influencer, like the Kardashians. It's not a bid deal to be famous anymore.

hetuzozaho · 06-04-2019 01:29AM

joeguevara wrote: »

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

For me this thread highlighted the documentary. And the documentary highlights agreed facts (that I presumed were nonsense) about him sleeping with children.

So I learnt a lot of facts about Michael Jackson due to this thread and the documentary.

So for me it BOGGLES the mind that people don't believe that those facts brought up in the doc are horrific.

joeguevara · 06-04-2019 01:32AM

AllForIt wrote: »

The thing that I get off this thread thread is a desperate desire that the allegations are true. And in having such spend hours trying to convince others it is true as per their desire.

Ppl keep saying is "if there is one thing that we should all agree on is that sleeping in a bed with children is wrong". I think everyone agrees with that. But on this ' all agree on' theme we also have to acknowledge that MJ whether child abuser or not, had one of the most unusual childhoods in terms of stardom that I can think of. Not that I'm saying that if he is guilty that that would be a mitigating factor.

His life was highly unusual from the day he started to perform. His music was unique and his dancing was completely original (of course he was influenced by earlier performers). In the history of musical 'stars', there was noone as 'big', as MJ. If on a stardom scale MJ was a 10, the next on the spectrum would be an 8. That applies whether you were into him or not. Personally as far as his musical heights are concerned I feet he dropped off from his BAD album onwards, all of his best stuff was pre that album. Had top hits since then nonetheless.

All I'm saying is that the whole MJ phenomenon is one that I don't think we'll ever see again. Especially as any tom dick and harry can become famous by being an influencer, like the Kardashians. It's not a bid deal to be famous anymore.

But that’s not even the real issue. People are having vicious rows with people they don’t know accusing them of being paedo sympathizers or being this and that about something none of us know. It’s crazy and no one is going to change other’s opinions so it’s just attack. For what?

hetuzozaho · 06-04-2019 01:44AM

joeguevara wrote: »

But that’s not even the real issue. People are having vicious rows with people they don’t know accusing them of being paedo sympathizers or being this and that about something none of us know. It’s crazy and no one is going to change other’s opinions so it’s just attack. For what?

I think that's the first use of the term paedo sympathiser ive seen in this thread.

And I've seen no vicious rows either.

Maybe I'm in the wrong thread.

joeguevara · 06-04-2019 02:11AM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think that's the first use of the term paedo sympathiser ive seen in this thread.

And I've seen no vicious rows either.

Maybe I'm in the wrong thread.

I never said the term was used but there definitely has been accusations of it. And you don’t think there has been rows? There has been great debate but it does descend into entrenched opinions and needless arguing.

AllForIt · 06-04-2019 02:52AM

joeguevara wrote: »

But that’s not even the real issue. People are having vicious rows with people they don’t know accusing them of being paedo sympathizers or being this and that about something none of us know. It’s crazy and no one is going to change other’s opinions so it’s just attack. For what?

Yes, I was just making some general comments.

The argument about 'paedo sympathizers' is laughable. We never lived in such a time that pedophilia is such a hot topic, such that online vigilante padeo hunters exist and supported by a significant number of the public. Where facebook users identify suspected paedos and rally ppl round to apprehend them more likely wrongly. And in all of this climate there are ppl who are suggesting that there are ppl on this forum defending pedophilia. Just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 06-04-2019 03:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And equally, not a lawyer-wannabee on a "social & fun" chat thread.

I can’t speak for anyone else here but I am a legal layperson. I have no problem saying that.

ceadaoin. · 06-04-2019 03:49AM

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, I was just making some general comments.

The argument about 'paedo sympathizers' is laughable. We never lived in such a time that pedophilia is such a hot topic, such that online vigilante padeo hunters exist and supported by a significant number of the public. Where facebook users identify suspected paedos and rally ppl round to apprehend them more likely wrongly. And in all of this climate there are ppl who are suggesting that there are ppl on this forum defending pedophilia. Just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

This was posted on the other thread. Is this not literally defending and minimising paedophilia? "It didnt happen but even if it did, it's not that bad because it was love, ok!" These are the lengths that people are willing to go to defend Michael Jackson. I mean, why? I don't get it

I don't see Jackson as a child abuser like Saville, I don't believe Wade and James's stories of horrid abuse, but I would be open to imagining Jackson could have possibly been gay, that he had loving relationships with people who by law were under age, but that it was love, not some twisted abuse like Saville's or Church abuse.
If what they say is truth, which I doubt, then it was a story of love not abuse, but by law illegal. But to suggest Jackson was like Saville, a guy who would visit hospitals to abuse everyone and anyone he came in contact with is just wrong. Jackson was a good guy with a great heart, If like Rene Angelil he fell for someone and had a relationship with them while they were underage then it would not make him a monster. Wade and James talk of love a lot, if true, maybe it was just love like Rene felt for Celine. This is me trying to make sense of it, not believing it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 06-04-2019 03:52AM

joeguevara wrote: »

I am going to preface this by saying michael Jackson was a childhood heart of mine. We used to listen to bad constantly. We used to act out scenes from moonwalker. Even as a kid though I thought he was a bit strange.

I never had much interest later in the trials and didn’t have an opinion either way. But a thread like this isn’t going to achieve anything but make posters on one side irate at the other. No one is going to change their opinion. It’s very similar to the Madeline McCann thread. Reasoned debate is one thing but is it really worth getting so angry because you can’t change another persons opinion.

It’s sad that it’s hurting his family and I disagree that defamation doesn’t occur when someone’s dead. I watched the documentary and it’s slapdash and accusatory and isn’t investigative journalism. It is nowhere near the caliber that Louis Theroux could do.

I believe that’s exactly the case in the US but I’m open to correction. But think about what defamation is. It’s about reputation. Reputation doesn’t matter to a skeleton, does it? And it’s not a by-proxy thing. His family might be hurt by the accusations but the accusations in and of themselves don’t damage their reputations unless they knowingly helped him in some way, in which case, fück them, quite frankly. I think it’s an absurd notion to say that if someone is dead, they should never be accused of anything again.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 06-04-2019 03:59AM

AllForIt wrote: »

The thing that I get off this thread thread is a desperate desire that the allegations are true. And in having such spend hours trying to convince others it is true as per their desire.

Ppl keep saying is "if there is one thing that we should all agree on is that sleeping in a bed with children is wrong". I think everyone agrees with that. But on this ' all agree on' theme we also have to acknowledge that MJ whether child abuser or not, had one of the most unusual childhoods in terms of stardom that I can think of. Not that I'm saying that if he is guilty that that would be a mitigating factor.

His life was highly unusual from the day he started to perform. His music was unique and his dancing was completely original (of course he was influenced by earlier performers). In the history of musical 'stars', there was noone as 'big', as MJ. If on a stardom scale MJ was a 10, the next on the spectrum would be an 8. That applies whether you were into him or not. Personally as far as his musical heights are concerned I feet he dropped off from his BAD album onwards, all of his best stuff was pre that album. Had top hits since then nonetheless.

All I'm saying is that the whole MJ phenomenon is one that I don't think we'll ever see again. Especially as any tom dick and harry can become famous by being an influencer, like the Kardashians. It's not a bid deal to be famous anymore.

Oh please. There’s determination and a desire to convince both ways. To be honest, I know I’m not going convince his defenders here and that’s okay. I’m just happy to put my points across. People can take them or leave them when they read this thread. At least they are there. And anyone confident in their position shouldn’t be bothered by the presence of opposing posts.

If you want to see grasping, step onto Twitter. And it’s mostly one-way.

Oh and the Beatles trounce MJ, easily. One step ahead of their contemporaries, completely ahead of their time in some of the music they produced, music that stands the test of time and is varied, with wide-reaching and thought-provoking subjects. This band produced ‘A Day In The Life’, ‘Eleanor Rigby’ and ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’. The last one wouldn’t have been out of place 30 years later. Three vastly different, interesting songs. And I would be amazed if they didn’t have more fans than MJ. He’s the 8 to their 10, if even.

joeguevara · 06-04-2019 04:03AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I believe that’s exactly the case in the US but I’m open to correction. But think about what defamation is. It’s about reputation. Reputation doesn’t matter to a skeleton, does it? And it’s not a by-proxy thing. His family might be hurt by the accusations but the accusations in and of themselves don’t damage their reputations unless they knowingly helped him in some way, in which case, fück them, quite frankly. I think it’s an absurd notion to say that if someone is dead, they should never be accused of anything again.

It’s hurting his innocent kids

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 06-04-2019 04:13AM

joeguevara wrote: »

It’s hurting his innocent kids

I’ve no doubt but is it hurting their reputations? I certainly don’t think less of them personally. I actually feel a lot of compassion for them.

I’m sure many people posthumously convicted of crimes had children. That not a reason to not make accusations. It’s a weak argument. Of course it will affect his children. That’s inescapable.

carlowplayer · 06-04-2019 04:35AM

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him and were around him alot as children.They report never once being molested.The fact that there are only two victims is telling if MJ was a pedophile there would have been dozens of more victims,Like all pedophiles including with the Catholic Church scandal.A pedophile surrounded by so many young children would have had more than two victims and its been well known the two accusers actually defended MJ while he was alive and and said he wasnt a pedophile.Its about the money plain and simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHWAOwvZoQ

ceadaoin. · 06-04-2019 05:26AM

carlowplayer wrote: »

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him and were around him alot as children.They report never once being molested.The fact that there are only two victims is telling if MJ was a pedophile there would have been dozens of more victims,Like all pedophiles including with the Catholic Church scandal.A pedophile surrounded by so many young children would have had more than two victims and its been well known the two accusers actually defended MJ while he was alive and and said he wasnt a pedophile.Its about the money plain and simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHWAOwvZoQ

But there are more than two accusers? I think there are 5 credible ones now, 2 of whom recieved settlements. These are just the latest. Feldman says he wasn't abused but he also says he was shown inappropriate material by Jackson.

If you actually watch the documentary, they explain why they defended him. It's not that uncommon for abuse victims to do this. In fact it's a known thing.

Also, as has been mentioned dozens of times in this thread, just because a paedophile doesn't abuse every child they meet, doesn't mean they didn't abuse any. The signs are there for all to see, to this day the detectives involved, who interviewed the previous accusers (the ones who got as far as court cases or the potential for one) and saw all the evidence believe him to be guilty. Does that mean nothing?

hetuzozaho · 06-04-2019 07:46AM

carlowplayer wrote: »

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him

Disgraceful isn't it? Two more children who were not treated right.

Both had drug issues later in life too I believe.

Boggles · 06-04-2019 09:08AM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I think that's the first use of the term paedo sympathiser ive seen in this thread.

joeguevara wrote: »

I never said the term was used but there definitely has been accusations of it.

I was definitely called that exact term and so were others AFAIK.

But I find it is best just to ignore that sort of person.

Boggles · 06-04-2019 09:11AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But there are more than two accusers? I think there are 5 credible ones now,

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

Flippyfloppy · 06-04-2019 09:39AM

Boggles wrote: »

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

There is 7 or 8 that have come forward. There’s also several adults at the time who claim to have seen abuse occurred/ were suspicious abuse occurred.

But that’s par for the course when a person is rich isn’t it, false sexual abuse accusations are constant!

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments