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
27-01-2019, 17:21   #46
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper12 View Post
So was Paddy Jackson & his co accused. His Ireland career was ruined because people won't accept the not guilty verdict.

You don't get to pick & choose who is innocent and guilty after a not guilty verdict. You have to accept the verdict.
The public made a decision about Jackson based on the details from the case. Everybody has the right to their own opinion in matters of morality.

Are we to assume you're wrong and the lad that stole from you is right?
VeryTerry is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
27-01-2019, 17:44   #47
Sleeper12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 10,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeryTerry
The public made a decision about Jackson based on the details from the case. Everybody has the right to their own opinion in matters of morality.

My point is that a poster is stating that two Americans are guilty. I'm saying that a very proportion of people believe the lads from the North are guilty. It's wrong to suggest that any of them are guilty. According to the law of Ireland, UK & USA they all have the presumption of innocence. The Northern lads are no more guilty or innocent than Michael Jackson, OJ etc.

It's ridiculous for a poster to say that the ones in the states are different to the ones in Ireland. All are not guilty according to the law. Notice I didn't say innocent. None of them were proven innocent. It's practically impossible to be proven innocent.
Sleeper12 is offline  
27-01-2019, 17:50   #48
ceadaoin.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlentyOhToole View Post
I could understand how Wade Robson might have done that as a 14-17 year old.

It's harder for me to understand how he did it as a 23 year old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Robson

Robson testified in Michael Jackson's defense at the People v. Jackson trial in 2005. When Jackson was acquitted of child abuse in this case, Robson said he had slept many times in Jackson's room, but he had never experienced any assault.In 2013, Robson claimed the opposite; that Jackson had sexually abused him as a child.In 2017, however, a judge dismissed the lawsuit against the Jackson estate on the grounds that the accused parties could not have controlled Jackson's behavior. The judge's ruling was not based on the credibility of Robson's allegations.]


I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.
I can understand that, shame and denial are powerful things. They were made to feel like they were in a relationship with jackson. maybe even money for their silence. Both have said they didn't begin to process what had happened until after his death.
ceadaoin. is online now  
27-01-2019, 17:54   #49
PlentyOhToole
Registered User
 
PlentyOhToole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceadaoin. View Post
I can understand that, shame and denial are powerful things. They were made to feel like they were in a relationship with jackson. maybe even money for their silence. Both have said they didn't begin to process what had happened until after his death.
It's documented that they were "dropped" at age 14 by Jackson. So how does that explain testifying on his behalf in an abuse case aged 23? Did they still believe, aged in their 20's that they were "in a relationship" with MJ?


You're the one who has suggested "money for silence"- not me.
PlentyOhToole is offline  
Thanks from:
27-01-2019, 17:59   #50
Sleeper12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 10,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlentyOhToole
I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.

I'm of the same thought. The guy is a liar one way or the other. Hard to figure out the truth there.

Many celebrities shared a bed with him and have insisted that nothing happened. More importantly for me is that their story never changed over the years or since his death. Macauly Culkin is one who to this day defends Jackson
Sleeper12 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
27-01-2019, 18:09   #51
ceadaoin.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlentyOhToole View Post
It's documented that they were "dropped" at age 14 by Jackson. So how does that explain testifying on his behalf in an abuse case aged 23? Did they still believe, aged in their 20's that they were "in a relationship" with MJ?


You're the one who has suggested "money for silence"- not me.
Because they were ashamed and embarrassed. It's a fairly common feeling among abuse victims, especially those who were groomed.
ceadaoin. is online now  
27-01-2019, 18:10   #52
PlentyOhToole
Registered User
 
PlentyOhToole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper12 View Post
I'm of the same thought. The guy is a liar one way or the other. Hard to figure out the truth there.

n
Just to be crystal clear- I'm not calling him a liar. I'm only saying I find it "harder to believe" that a 23 year old could testify in the way he did - I can understand that as a 14 year old he may still be under MJ's "control"- that's all.

It may well have a valid explanation, but I haven't heard that explanation yet from anything I've read online. So interested to see/hear what he says in subsequent interviews.
PlentyOhToole is offline  
Thanks from:
27-01-2019, 18:14   #53
ceadaoin.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper12 View Post
I'm of the same thought. The guy is a liar one way or the other. Hard to figure out the truth there.

Many celebrities shared a bed with him and have insisted that nothing happened. More importantly for me is that their story never changed over the years or since his death. Macauly Culkin is one who to this day defends Jackson
That doesn't mean anything imo. Abusers are skilled at picking out victims, it's not like they abuse every child they see. They go for the most vulnerable. And of course in this case its great for him to have a couple of high profile people who can talk about how he didn't abuse them so therefore must be innocent.
ceadaoin. is online now  
(2) thanks from:
27-01-2019, 18:15   #54
PlentyOhToole
Registered User
 
PlentyOhToole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 3,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceadaoin. View Post
Because they were ashamed and embarrassed. It's a fairly common feeling among abuse victims, especially those who were groomed.
How does being "ashamed" and "embarrassed" prompt you to get on the stand and confess under oath, in defence of MJ, at the age of 23? I haven't watched the documentary but nothing released by the media points to that so far.

Very happy to be corrected on this BTW, as I do think MJ was a low-life, but I just haven't seen any clear explanation online so far regarding his testimony at MJ's abuse trial.
PlentyOhToole is offline  
Advertisement
27-01-2019, 18:16   #55
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sleeper12 View Post
It's wrong to suggest that any of them are guilty.
No it's not. The legal system isn't infallible as you found out yourself.
VeryTerry is offline  
27-01-2019, 18:24   #56
Sleeper12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 10,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlentyOhToole
Just to be crystal clear- I'm not calling him a liar. I'm only saying I find it "harder to believe" that a 23 year old could testify in the way he did - I can understand that as a 14 year old he may still be under MJ's "control"- that's all.

I haven't seen it myself but there are two adult accusers. Both swore under oath that he never touched them. Both have changed their story.
Jacksons estate point out that the movie hangs solely on these two liars. I use liars because they are either lying now or they perjured themselves in court so liars one way or another. The estate points out that no one else was interviewed for this movie. Just the two who swore under oath that he didn't touch them.

I've no idea who did what. No one here does.
Sleeper12 is offline  
(2) thanks from:
27-01-2019, 18:25   #57
CalamariFritti
Registered User
 
CalamariFritti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by retro:electro View Post
There’s nothing innocent about a grown man sleeping in the same bed as young boys, having alarms and censors fitted so he knew when people were approaching his bedroom, and having his whole house kitted out like a children’s fantasy wonderland. He was a paedophile.
I can't believe how people come out saying 'xyz, happened, or such and such is not normal, he's a paedophile'. Where they there or something? Or are they just thinking they're putting 2 & 2 together so that's how it must have been and that allows them to make a matter of fact statement? Thats a rhetoric question btw.

Especially when its about someone who's dead and cant defend themselves or sue for slander I think its pretty low.
CalamariFritti is offline  
Thanks from:
27-01-2019, 18:25   #58
foxy06
Registered User
 
foxy06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,081
The crazy thing is even if he only shared a bed with them and didn't abuse them it's still not bloody right. Even if he had only done the things he has actually admitted to he is still a pervert. The man was a predator and his fans are blind to it because they just don't want to believe it. Change the person from Michael Jackson famous singer to Mick who lives on his own down the road and then everyone would agree to what he really is. A paedophile.
foxy06 is offline  
27-01-2019, 18:32   #59
Sleeper12
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 10,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeryTerry
No it's not. The legal system isn't infallible as you found out yourself.

Yes it is wrong to say that they were guilty. If you said the same here about the rugby players you'd be banned (I'm not trying to moderate here). If you said that the rugby players were guilty on social media you could be sued. It is most definitely wrong to say that someone found not guilty is guilty.

The legal system is anything but perfect I totally agree. In Ireland, UK and the States we have reasonable doubt. This allows guilty people, particularly in rape cases to go free. This is terrible but this ensures that innocent people don't go to jail. I'd rather have 10 guilty on the streets than one innocent in jail.
Sleeper12 is offline  
27-01-2019, 18:35   #60
CalamariFritti
Registered User
 
CalamariFritti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxy06 View Post
The crazy thing is even if he only shared a bed with them and didn't abuse them it's still not bloody right. Even if he had only done the things he has actually admitted to he is still a pervert. The man was a predator and his fans are blind to it because they just don't want to believe it. Change the person from Michael Jackson famous singer to Mick who lives on his own down the road and then everyone would agree to what he really is. A paedophile.
But how can you 'agree' on something you simply cannot know? You can believe he is a paedophile but you cant make that a matter of fact statement.

There is a good chance he was. But by all accounts he was pretty messed up in the head and behaved in many ways like an adult child. Like this whole Peter Pan obsession and the Kinderland mansion. Thats not really something someone would do who simply wants to fiddle with children. He had tons of money and all sorts of means to do that in different ways I'm sure.

Like I said one would think he was, I have to agree on that, but you just don't know. But of course nowadays everyone knows. Especially on the internet.
CalamariFritti is offline  
Thanks from:
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