Micky Jackson in trouble again

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 2:24pm

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 2:25pm

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 2:26pm

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 2:31pm

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 2:53pm

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 2:53pm

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 2:56pm

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 2:58pm

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 2:59pm

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 3:14pm

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 3:28pm

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 3:32pm

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 3:52pm

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 4:05pm

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 4:32pm

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 5:07pm

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 5:12pm

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 5:17pm

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 5:18pm

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 5:23pm

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...

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 5:26pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

Next...

Does Jordan Chandler not exist any more?

So that's three. How many do you need?

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 5:26pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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.

Next...

Not all abusers have hundreds of victims. Savile seems to be on a scale all of his own nearly.

Next

Jerichoholic · 12-03-2019 5:29pm

Jackson fans were always weird, but defending him over this is on it's own level. Have a word with yourself.

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 5:35pm

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Jackson fans were always weird, but defending him over this is on it's own level. Have a word with yourself.

Yes, the vehemence of certain posters and others online in their arguments against these two men is..disturbing. it's more than just leaning one way based on the facts out there. You'd think it was personal almost. Weird

Boggles · 12-03-2019 5:45pm

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Jackson fans were always weird,

You mean Robson and Safechuck?

They are not that weird, people have always done extraordinary things for money, the more money on offer the more extraordinary these things seem to be.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 5:48pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, the vehemence of certain posters and others online in their arguments against these two men is..disturbing. it's more than just leaning one way based on the facts out there. You'd think it was personal almost. Weird

Its interesting. Like who knows what happened behind those bedroom doors.

Master of deception this, master of deception that. Master of deception helps defend jackson in court where he is found not guilty. Was he a master of deception that day? Jackson is innocent. Master of deception said so!

ToddyDoody · 12-03-2019 5:55pm

Problem solved.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-37694475

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 6:01pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Does Jordan Chandler not exist any more?

So that's three. How many do you need?

After his death I said. :mad:

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 6:02pm

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Jackson fans were always weird, but defending him over this is on it's own level. Have a word with yourself.

New to the thread? Welcome.

So care to name the Jackson fans on here? You know, the ones who bought every album, etc.

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 6:07pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, the vehemence of certain posters and others online in their arguments against these two men is..disturbing. it's more than just leaning one way based on the facts out there. You'd think it was personal almost. Weird

Not personal.

I think people are daft to base their opinion on a one sided documentary with no cross examination of witnesses.

Its this daftness I have issue with. I don't think I could put it more simpler than that.

But people are free to make up their own minds.

Labelling someone whose skeptical about details of the documentary as rabid Jackson fans is just barrel scraping to be honest. I guess if they believe that however, there is nothing they won't believe!

12-03-2019 6:11pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

After his death I said. :mad:

Why does it matter if it was before or after his death? One massive settlement and one court case does not prove his innocence. All we know is that a jury cleared him in a trial with regard to one accuser. And some of those jurors have since spoken out and said they knew he was a paedophile but couldn't convict beyond reasonable doubt.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 6:13pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not personal.

I think people are daft to base their opinion on a one sided documentary with no cross examination of witnesses.

Its this daftness I have issue with. I don't think I could put it more simpler than that.

But people are free to make up their own minds.

Labelling someone whose skeptical about details of the documentary as rabid Jackson fans is just barrel scraping to be honest. I guess if they believe that however, there is nothing they won't believe!

Do you think it's possible he abused them?

MD1990 · 12-03-2019 6:16pm

All I ever see is ToBeFrank posting in here.

Think you might be a bit obsessed with the case.

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 6:17pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Do you think it's possible he abused them?

I'm still on the fence about these two guys. I'd love to take them at face value but its hard when one is a self proclaimed master of deception who omitted stuff from the documentary that would blow a hole in his account. He said MJ tried to turn him off girls in the documentary. In reality we know MJ set him up with his niece who he dated for 9 years. So that's one lie we are sure of. How many more are there?

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 6:19pm

MD1990 wrote: »

All I ever see is ToBeFrank posting in here.

Think you might be a bit obsessed with the case.

Ah come on man. There's dozens of posters in here. There's no need to tell a lie like that is there?

If I don't respond to posters, they say I'm being evasive etc. If I respond people like you say I'm the only one posting.

Can't win!

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 6:20pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not personal.

I think people are daft to base their opinion on a one sided documentary with no cross examination of witnesses.

Its this daftness I have issue with. I don't think I could put it more simpler than that.

But people are free to make up their own minds.

Labelling someone whose skeptical about details of the documentary as rabid Jackson fans is just barrel scraping to be honest. I guess if they believe that however, there is nothing they won't believe!

I'm not just basing it on this though. I'm basing it on jacksons own behaviour, the stuff found during the search, and the stories of the previous accusers and detectives involved in the case. Staff members who witnessed stuff, even members of the public who made complaints based on his behaviour with kids, before even any accusations were made public. One couple on a train did this after seeing strange behaviour and hearing "questionable" noises coming from his cabin that he was sharing with a child. All of it together points to one thing, like it's literally the only logical explanation

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 6:20pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I'm still on the fence about these two guys. I'd love to take them at face value but its hard when one is a self proclaimed master of deception who omitted stuff from the documentary that would blow a hole in his account. He said MJ tried to turn him off girls in the documentary. In reality we know MJ set him up with his niece who he dated for 9 years. So that's one lie we are sure of. How many more are there?

But do you think its a possibility?

ToBeFrank123 · 12-03-2019 6:22pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But do you think its a possibility?

There's a slim possibility. Unfortunately these two guys lack credibility. So basing anything on them is difficult if not impossible.

I wish more credible witnesses came forward tbh, ones not proven to have lied in the past about issues relating to the whole thing.

I'm going to take the advice of a previous poster and take a break from this thread for a while. Might be back later, might not be.

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 6:24pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I'm still on the fence about these two guys. I'd love to take them at face value but its hard when one is a self proclaimed master of deception who omitted stuff from the documentary that would blow a hole in his account. He said MJ tried to turn him off girls in the documentary. In reality we know MJ set him up with his niece who he dated for 9 years. So that's one lie we are sure of. How many more are there?

Set them up at 9 years of age. That's not normal and could just be seen as another way of controlling wade and keeping tabs on him

12-03-2019 6:30pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I'm not just basing it on this though. I'm basing it on jacksons own behaviour, the stuff found during the search, and the stories of the previous accusers and detectives involved in the case. Staff members who witnessed stuff, even members of the public who made complaints based on his behaviour with kids, before even any accusations were made public. One couple on a train did this after seeing strange behaviour and hearing "questionable" noises coming from his cabin that he was sharing with a child. All of it together points to one thing, like it's literally the only logical explanation

That poster has been told this many many times on the thread, but just ignores it and then a few pages later repeats the claim that we're all making assumptions based on one documentary. Like a broken record.

Flippyfloppy · 12-03-2019 6:31pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

After his death I said. :mad:

So weird. Not every celebrity paedophile situation has to play out exactly like Jimmy Saville you know.

Flippyfloppy · 12-03-2019 6:36pm

Flying Fox wrote: »

That poster has been told this many many times on the thread, but just ignores it and then a few pages later repeats the claim that we're all making assumptions based on one documentary. Like a broken record.

A broken record or something else entirely.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 6:38pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

There's a slim possibility.

Yep it's looking like a possibility alright. Lot of people speaking about it leaning that way too.

Awful stuff if true. Their testimonies are an even more difficult watch for me then.

Jerichoholic · 12-03-2019 6:43pm

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Problem solved.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-37694475

They should use that on every single repeat criminal offender. The world would be a better place.

joe40 · 12-03-2019 6:48pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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...

Stock answer. You can't be guilty unless there are hundreds of victims.

fryup · 12-03-2019 6:52pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, the vehemence of certain posters and others online in their arguments against these two men is..disturbing. it's more than just leaning one way based on the facts out there. You'd think it was personal almost. Weird

its not weird if you look at the broader picture of this case...there's a definite sinister agenda behind Robson & Safechuck's reason for doing this documentary and its got nothing to do with sex abuse

research it online,

marklazarcovic · 12-03-2019 7:08pm

fryup wrote: »

its not weird if you look at the broader picture of this case...there's a definite sinister agenda behind Robson & Safechuck's reason for doing this documentary and its got nothing to do with sex abuse

research it online,

even if all they are after now is money,im ok with that, they can never get back what was taken from them (if true),and they will never ever live a normal life, if they can get every cent off that jackson estate great.

id put all the victims in with them too,share it amongst them. (if true allegations)

shut down the estate,and all the complicit fckers can fend for themselves if they are not doing time.

his kids will be looked after anyways.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 7:12pm

marklazarcovic wrote: »

even if all they are after now is money,im ok with that,

Personally I'd prefer them to seek justice through the criminal system, sends out a more severe message.

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 7:17pm

Boggles wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer them to seek justice through the criminal system, sends out a more severe message.

I feel they've a good message out there now regarding grooming and abuse victims etc. People talking about it and engaging with it.

A good thing for society to know more about. So many victims live silently among us. It's tough for them.

joe40 · 12-03-2019 7:21pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Boggles wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer them to seek justice through the criminal system, sends out a more severe message.

I feel they've a good message out there now regarding grooming and abuse victims etc. People talking about it and engaging with it.

A good thing for society to know more about. So many victims live silently among us. It's tough for them.

Yeah I agree with that.
Plenty of people complain about metoo, and PC gone mad but the simple fact is there would be no way Jackson's behaviour with kids in the 90s would be tolerated today.
If he is in fact innocent and was simply naive that would still have been good for him.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments