Micky Jackson in trouble again

innuendo141 · 14-03-2019 6:15pm

Scotty # wrote: »

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!

Jordan Chandler emancipated from his parents at 18 I think.

Edit- or earlier, since 18 is an adult...

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 6:22pm

I've read that he did that to get access to the money rather than his parents being in control of it until he came of age. And also that he cut contact with his mother because he blamed her for what happened. The abuse that is, not her "forcing him to lie". The story posted earlier about him recanting everything is false. He has never spoken a word about it and legally was/is not able to.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:26pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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?

Ah, ah, ah.

He claimed under Oath, Jackson his lawyers and assistant phoned him and tried to badger him into testifying. Multiple phones calls.

For the cheap seats

You can't be badgered into testifying in a trial that you can't testify in. What part of that is confusing you?

innuendo141 · 14-03-2019 6:26pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I've read that he did that to get access to the money rather than his parents being in control of it until he came of age. And also that he cut contact with his mother because he blamed her for what happened. The abuse that is, not her "forcing him to lie". The story posted earlier about him recanting everything is false. He has never spoken a word about it and legally was/is not able to.

It does get thrown around a lot that he admitted nothing ever happened later on, which is just a blatant lie.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:27pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He has never spoken a word about it and legally was/is not able to.

That is simply not true.

He was asked to testify in the 2005 trial. His mother did testify.

Round and Round.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:29pm

innuendo141 wrote: »

It does get thrown around a lot that he admitted nothing ever happened later on, which is just a blatant lie.

Well not according to Jacksons lawyer, who stated that if Chandler had taken the stand in 2005 he had multiple witnesses lined up to say under oath that Chandler told them the whole thing was made up.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 6:30pm

Scotty # wrote: »

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!

It's inappropriate for a grown man to leave pornography out in the open in areas that are frequented but children though, right? And when you factor in that the man has been accused of abusing children, well it becomes more sinister. It's well known that showing pornography is used as a grooming technique.

And the "art" books in question featuring naked boys were made by paedophiles and members of nambla. I'm not sure any regular grown adult who wasn't a paedophile would feel comfortable owning them. The material would be considered illegal in some countries. Perhaps that's why they were locked away. Still in his bedroom though

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:30pm

Scotty # wrote: »

Yep that's pretty damning!!

IT is until you realize some of it actually doesn't exist.

Been done on the thread all ready by the poster who reposted it, but sure

Round and Round we go.

innuendo141 · 14-03-2019 6:31pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well not according to Jacksons lawyer, who stated that if Chandler had taken the stand in 2005 he had multiple witnesses lined up to say under oath that Chandler told them the whole thing was made up.

I know yeah, there are friends hes supposed to have admitted it to, but I was speaking strictly about a public confession.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:32pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's inappropriate for a grown man to leave pornography out in the open in areas that are frequented but children though, right?

Several witnesses testified that no such "girlie mags" were left out in the open.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 6:32pm

Boggles wrote: »

That is simply not true.

He was asked to testify in the 2005 trial. His mother did testify.

Round and Round.

What is "simply not true" is that Chandler recanted everything and said it was all made up. Unless you can provide a source for this?

They did sign an agreement to not make any public comments about the case. They even sued Jackson for breeching this when he spoke about the events in an interview.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:33pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What is "simply not true" is that Chandler recanted everything and said it was all made up. Unless you can provide a source for this?

I never claimed he did.

I imagine he could be in some legal jeopardy if he did.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:35pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And the "art" books in question featuring naked boys were made by paedophiles and members of nambla.

Goodie, glad you slipped that one in there again.

Proof of this please and not some weird blog by #snowfaker (whatever his name was).

I've you asked for proof a lot of times but still In your own good time. Cheers.

Mr.Wemmick · 14-03-2019 6:37pm

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?

Considering, the lawyer (who is still talking now), his assistants and Jackson are the ones who had the officialdom of lawyers, admin, records at their finger tips why can't they prove they didn't ring Safechuck. If you have the money/resources, you could've pulled up Safechuck's phone records before, after and during the trial to prove he did not receive a call from the Jackson estate or lawyer's office. Wonder why they never bothered, eh?

No! Far better to throw your lawyered weight into slinging mud at Safechuck from the sidelines, dirty the water.. smear him. Easier, especially when you have no evidence and he can't do anything about it. He has no money and he's wrecked, drunk, drugged anyway, right?

What a crocK of sh!t.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 6:38pm

Boggles wrote: »

IT is until you realize some of it actually doesn't exist.

Been done on the thread all ready by the poster who reposted it, but sure

Round and Round we go.

I don't accept that the state applied to admit evidence that doesn't exist. Why would they do this? Any explanations? The suggestion is beyond ridiculous.

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:38pm

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Considering, the lawyer (who is still talking now), his assistants and Jackson are the ones who had the officialdom of lawyers, admin, records at their finger tips why can't they prove they didn't ring Safechuck. If you have the money/resources, you could've pulled up Safechuck's phone records before, after and during the trial to prove he did not receive a call from the Jackson estate or lawyer's office. Wonder why they never bothered, eh?
.

What trial?

Boggles · 14-03-2019 6:39pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't accept that the state applied to admit evidence that doesn't exist. Why would they do this? Any explanations? The suggestion is beyond ridiculous.

Well if they had what they claimed it would have been introduced wouldn't it?

I mean they didn't have any other evidence.

But sure Round and Round.

ceadaoin. · 14-03-2019 6:40pm

Boggles wrote: »

Goodie, glad you slipped that one in there again.

Proof of this please and not some weird blog by #snowfaker (whatever his name was).

I've you asked for proof a lot of times but still In your own good time. Cheers.

The New York times link when the editor was done for child abuse was still not good enough for you. Neither was the book published in the 80s where the pseudonym was confirmed. I'm not going to bother. Just keep that head in the sand like the good Jackson fan you claim not to be.

You're right, it is round and round, so I'm out. At this point there is enough stuff out there for people to decide. We'll have to wait and see if any further evidence or victims come to light.

hetuzozaho · 14-03-2019 6:47pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The New York times link when the editor was done for child abuse was still not good enough for you. Neither was the book published in the 80s where the pseudonym was confirmed. I'm not going to bother. Just keep that head in the sand like the good Jackson fan you claim not to be.

You're right, it is round and round, so I'm out. At this point there is enough stuff out there for people to decide. We'll have to wait and see if any further evidence or victims come to light.

I think one thing we can all agree on, if he was alive today we wouldn't be letting him babysit the kids

Boggles · 14-03-2019 8:10pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The New York times link when the editor was done for child abuse was still not good enough for you.
Neither was the book published in the 80s where the pseudonym was confirmed. I'm not going to bother. Just keep that head in the sand like the good Jackson fan you claim not to be.
.

You are not going to bother because you have been pushing a blatant lie on the thread from the start and you can't back it up.

That would be more accurate wouldn't it?

But hey, prove me wrong.

Throw up the link that confirms that the 2 people who wrote the book are infact 2 convicted sex offenders.

Take your time, we have waited this long. Bit longer won't hurt.

Flippyfloppy · 14-03-2019 9:46pm

Boggles wrote: »

You are not going to bother because you have been pushing a blatant lie on the thread from the start and you can't back it up.

That would be more accurate wouldn't it?

But hey, prove me wrong.

Throw up the link that confirms that the 2 people who wrote the book are infact 2 convicted sex offenders.

Take your time, we have waited this long. Bit longer won't hurt.

Ceadoins not going to bother because you’re obviously flaming. I’m actually just laughing at Boggles posts these days. The mind boggles indeed!

ted1 · 15-03-2019 1:42am

SusieBlue wrote: »

Not to mention all the elderly people we have here in our own country who were sexually and physically abused by nuns and priests who are still extremely religious & utterly devoted to the Catholic church.

Why would people associate themselves with a religion & clergy who raped, assaulted and abused them? They do. Its not uncommon.
And it doesn't mean they're lying about what happened to them.

Because the individual did it not the religion.

Boggles · 15-03-2019 9:14am

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Ceadoins not going to bother because you’re obviously flaming. I’m actually just laughing at Boggles posts these days. The mind boggles indeed!

Flaming is when someone attacks the poster because they can't back up their argument.

Are you familiar with irony?

Adamocovic · 15-03-2019 2:00pm

I know it's nothing new for his daughter Paris Jackson but my word her quotes on the matter are bizarre.

First said nothing she can say that hasn't been said in his defence and then some odd quotes like:

"Taj is doing a perfect job, (her cousin, when asked about her views of the documentary), I support him but that's not my role.
I'm just tryna get everyone to chill out and go with the flow, be mellow and think about the bigger picture. That's me."

Paris, who is the second of Michael Jackson's three children, had previously told fans to "chillax", "calm down" and "smoke some weed" instead of getting upset over the allegations.

She told one person on Twitter: "Do you really think that it's possible to tear his name down? Do you truly believe they stand a chance?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47582054

Am I the only one who finds that crazy? Not saying her reaction hints towards whether he's guilty or innocent but if my father was being accused of those things, with a documentary interviewing people I used to know, I certainly wouldn't be like "chillax guys and smoke some weed" or "not my role to support him".

Baffling reaction.

hetuzozaho · 15-03-2019 3:55pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

I know it's nothing new for his daughter Paris Jackson but my word her quotes on the matter are bizarre.

First said nothing she can say that hasn't been said in his defence and then some odd quotes like:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47582054

Am I the only one who finds that crazy? Not saying her reaction hints towards whether he's guilty or innocent but if my father was being accused of those things, with a documentary interviewing people I used to know, I certainly wouldn't be like "chillax guys and smoke some weed" or "not my role to support him".

Baffling reaction.

I suppose she's lived a different life to the rest of us.

The whole setup with Jackson and her mother from the get go seems a bit odd anyway, in my opinion. It sounds from the couple of relationships I've read about he seems more into heterosexual pornography than the act itself.

Ursus Horribilis · 15-03-2019 8:00pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds that crazy? Not saying her reaction hints towards whether he's guilty or innocent but if my father was being accused of those things, with a documentary interviewing people I used to know, I certainly wouldn't be like "chillax guys and smoke some weed" or "not my role to support him".

Baffling reaction.

I don't know what to make of it and have different thoughts about it. My guess is that she's taking the most tactful way out of this in order to avoid drawing attention to herself. If you look at her life story, there is a lot of weirdness there. Not all of it shows Jackson in a positive light either, in my opinion.

For starters, it would appear that her mother's marriage to Jackson was one of convenience and happened so he could have children of his own. If Mark Lester is to be believed, he's her biological father and not Jackson himself. Jackson told Martin Bashir that as soon as she was born, he snatched her and brought her straight home from the hospital. Before they even had a chance to clean her up. She doesn't appear to have had any relationship with her mother for many years. If all of that isn't fecked up sh*t in its own right, I don't know what is.

joeguevara · 15-03-2019 9:24pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well if they had what they claimed it would have been introduced wouldn't it?

I mean they didn't have any other evidence.

But sure Round and Round.

I am not 100% of the process but I have been reading of record and testimony sealing in some US States. It happens a lot in court cases involving minors. Could be an explanation where they know a witness statement exists but cannot introduce it. This is a theory and have nothing to back it up but might what happened here.

Dontfadeaway · 15-03-2019 9:34pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I've read that he did that to get access to the money rather than his parents being in control of it until he came of age. And also that he cut contact with his mother because he blamed her for what happened. The abuse that is, not her "forcing him to lie". The story posted earlier about him recanting everything is false. He has never spoken a word about it and legally was/is not able to.

Why isn't he able to? Wasn't his mother at the trial in 2005?

Smertrius · 15-03-2019 9:36pm

whAT THEY SHOULD have PUT AS ON THE NEWS or NEWS BROADCAST OR YOUTUBE IT AS SMALL VIDEOS, NOT A TV PROGRAM, its making them see as bad guys and bullying his family, friends and fans

hetuzozaho · 15-03-2019 11:03pm

Is it ture that the mother never had sex with Michael? Surely not? Some stupid site I'm reading no doubt

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments