Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
14-03-2019, 17:38   #2896
ceadaoin.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggles View Post
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.
ceadaoin. is online now  
Advertisement
14-03-2019, 17:38   #2897
Boggles
Registered User
 
Boggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Wemmick View Post
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 is offline  
14-03-2019, 17:39   #2898
Boggles
Registered User
 
Boggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceadaoin. View Post
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.
Boggles is offline  
14-03-2019, 17:40   #2899
ceadaoin.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggles View Post
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.
ceadaoin. is online now  
(3) thanks from:
14-03-2019, 17:47   #2900
hetuzozaho
Registered User
 
hetuzozaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceadaoin. View Post
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
hetuzozaho is online now  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
14-03-2019, 19:10   #2901
Boggles
Registered User
 
Boggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceadaoin. View Post
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.
Boggles is offline  
14-03-2019, 20:46   #2902
Flippyfloppy
Registered User
 
Flippyfloppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggles View Post
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!
Flippyfloppy is offline  
15-03-2019, 00:42   #2903
ted1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 15,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by SusieBlue View Post
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.
ted1 is offline  
Thanks from:
15-03-2019, 08:14   #2904
Boggles
Registered User
 
Boggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flippyfloppy View Post
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?
Boggles is offline  
Advertisement
15-03-2019, 13:00   #2905
Adamocovic
Registered User
 
Adamocovic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,706
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:

Quote:
"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.
Adamocovic is online now  
15-03-2019, 14:55   #2906
hetuzozaho
Registered User
 
hetuzozaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamocovic View Post
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.

Last edited by hetuzozaho; 15-03-2019 at 14:58.
hetuzozaho is online now  
Thanks from:
15-03-2019, 19:00   #2907
Ursus Horribilis
Registered User
 
Ursus Horribilis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamocovic View Post
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.

Last edited by Ursus Horribilis; 15-03-2019 at 20:56.
Ursus Horribilis is online now  
(4) thanks from:
15-03-2019, 20:24   #2908
joeguevara
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggles View Post
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.
joeguevara is offline  
15-03-2019, 20:34   #2909
Dontfadeaway
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceadaoin. View Post
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?
Dontfadeaway is offline  
15-03-2019, 20:36   #2910
Smertrius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 298
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
Smertrius is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet