Micky Jackson in trouble again

fryup · 12-03-2019 7:27pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

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.

well in this case they're actually doing a disservice to genuine abuse victims

....because these two guys are liars, and after this farce is exposed no one will know who to believe in the future

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 7:30pm

fryup wrote: »

....because these two guys are liars

We don't know they are lying about this abuse.

Hannibal_Smith · 12-03-2019 7:31pm

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

Staff members say they saw Macauley Culkin being abused. Culkin says he wasnt.

For every accusation there is a rebuttal and theyre not too much of a leap either. You may have made your mind up, but I cant. I dont believe Safechuck and Robson. And i dont need videos etc to emerge. Im leaning more towards it being true but im reluctant to make a decision because i cant be sure.

is_that_so · 12-03-2019 7:33pm

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

Vehemence has been used by many posters, quite a bit of it mudslinging I'm afraid.

is_that_so · 12-03-2019 7:37pm

Jerichoholic wrote: »

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

Online posters have always been weird. Convinced we're always right and know better.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 7:45pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Staff members say they saw Macauley Culkin being abused. Culkin says he wasnt.

That was a French Cook. He tried to sell his "story" to the National Enquirer before the trial, a story that kept changing, even the guy from the Enquirer stated it was complete BS. He wanted 500k for it.

Needless to say he was destroyed in court when put on the stand.

Flippyfloppy · 12-03-2019 7:50pm

Former staffer speaks out confirming allegations: https://au.news.yahoo.com/michael-jackons-former-staffers-speak-012730754.html?guccounter=2

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 7:52pm

Boggles wrote: »

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

I'm sure victims of sexual assault everywhere give a sh1t what your preference is.

It's incredibly difficult to prosecute claims where it's one person's word against another "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal court. And no matter what the situation is, the defence will always try to tear the victim apart on the stand, because it's their job to.

e.g. I don't remember what month I was sexually assulted in. It was 2010. But I was living somewhere where the weather is pretty much the same all year round, and nothing about that night stands out in my mind other than the fact that I was sexually assaulted. I could describe the assault to you in great detail, but I couldn't tell you exactly when it was, how much I had to drink that night or who else was there. Those are details I remember and a defence attorney would seize on that as evidence that it didn't happen. But it did.

If they choose to pursue a civil case instead, I'm fine with it.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 8:11pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I'm sure victims of sexual assault everywhere give a sh1t what your preference is.

You mean justice for sexual assault victims?

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It's incredibly difficult to prosecute claims where it's one person's word against another "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal court. And no matter what the situation is, the defence will always try to tear the victim apart on the stand, because it's their job to.

It's not one persons word against anothers, the allegations go far beyond Jackson, who is dead and cannot be prosecuted. But there are people alive that can be given their day in court.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

e.g. I don't remember what month I was sexually assulted in. It was 2010. But I was living somewhere where the weather is pretty much the same all year round, and nothing about that night stands out in my mind other than the fact that I was sexually assaulted. I could describe the assault to you in great detail, but I couldn't tell you exactly when it was, how much I had to drink that night or who else was there. Those are details I remember and a defence attorney would seize on that as evidence that it didn't happen. But it did.

I'm sorry to hear you were assaulted, but your experience has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations that 2 lads are making.

MD1990 · 12-03-2019 8:14pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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!

i know was just joking.

It not a black & white case too.

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 8:16pm

Boggles wrote: »

You mean justice for sexual assault victims?

I mean how they choose to seek justice.

Boggles wrote: »

It's not one persons word against anothers, the allegations go far beyond Jackson, who is dead and cannot be prosecuted. But there are people alive that can be given their day in court.

Who, specifically, would you like to see criminal charges filed against?

Boggles wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear you were assaulted, but your experience has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations that 2 lads are making.

No, it doesn't - I'm just explaining why from my point of view it's perfectly reasonable to take a civil case rather than go the criminal route which is inevitably going to be traumatic because it is the defence attorney's job to tear you apart.

Boggles · 12-03-2019 8:34pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Who, specifically, would you like to see criminal charges filed against?

The people they are making the allegations against.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No, it doesn't - I'm just explaining why from my point of view it's perfectly reasonable to take a civil case rather than go the criminal route which is inevitably going to be traumatic because it is the defence attorney's job to tear you apart.

What do you think happens in a civil court case?

The boys come in, show the 4 hour documentary, take a few soft questions from the jury and leave with 1 billion dollars?

Buford T. Justice XIX · 12-03-2019 8:36pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is, as you say, the standard we are held to in a court of law. So, if I was on a jury in a Michael Jackson trial, I would be obliged legally to offer him presumption of innocence.

As a general observer, I am not held to the same standard. I can hold whatever opinion I like based on the information available to me.

I think OJ is a murderer and I think Michael Jackson is a child molester. And you can agree or disagree, that's fine. But freedom of expression is another important principle of democracy, I get to hold these opinions.

Mod note: Edited to remove accusation.

Let me explain this slowly to you. Cut out that rubbish or find somewhere else to slap it up. It's not going to happen here.

Clear?

Good!

Buford T. Justice

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 8:41pm

Boggles wrote: »

The people they are making the allegations against.

Who have they made allegations against?

Boggles wrote: »

What do you think happens in a civil court case?

The boys come in, show the 4 hour documentary, take a few soft questions from the jury and leave with 1 billion dollars?

No, but it's certainly a less arduous and traumatic process than a criminal trial, and often they get settled before the case ends.

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 8:43pm

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Mod note: Edited to remove accusation.

Let me explain this slowly to you. Cut out that rubbish or find somewhere else to slap it up. It's not going to happen here.

Clear?

Good!

Buford T. Justice

I'm genuinely curious as to why I'm allowed say that about OJ but not about Paddy Jackson. What's the difference? In all three cases I am expressing my personal opinion, and I really don't understand why two are allowed but the third isn't?

Hannibal_Smith · 12-03-2019 8:43pm

Boggles wrote: »

That was a French Cook. He tried to sell his "story" to the National Enquirer before the trial, a story that kept changing, even the guy from the Enquirer stated it was complete BS. He wanted 500k for it.

Needless to say he was destroyed in court when put on the stand.

There was another female one...she was caught stealing I think?

Boggles · 12-03-2019 8:46pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Who have they made allegations against?

2 companies, they have named at least one individual.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No, but it's certainly a less arduous and traumatic process than a criminal trial, and often they get settled before the case ends.

This has been going on for 6 years.

As for less traumatic, they just appeared on Oprah after making a 4 hour "documentary".

In a criminal trial it is the prosecution that does all the lifting, including financial. It would be far less traumatic IMO then what they have done.

Yeah if they decide to take the stand (they don't have) then yes they will be cross examined, that's only fair to the people they are making allegations against.

fin12 · 12-03-2019 8:47pm

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 8:53pm

Boggles wrote: »

2 companies, they have named at least one individual.

This has been going on for 6 years.

As for less traumatic, they just appeared on Oprah after making a 4 hour "documentary".

In a criminal trial it is the prosecution that does all the lifting, including financial. It would be far less traumatic IMO then what they have done.

Yeah if they decide to take the stand (they don't have) then yes they will be cross examined, that's only fair to the people they are making allegations against.

Appearing on Oprah and telling your story in a documentary are 100% less traumatic than going through a criminal trial.

Of course they would have to be cross-examined, and that is only fair, but I strongly believe that in particularly in cases of sexual assault and child abuse that there should be rules/ systems in place to protect alleged victims from overly adversarial defence attorneys.

This is an aside from the MJ case but things like what happened in Cork recently where an alleged victim's underwear were held up in court as 'proof' she was up for it just should not be allowed, and it's a disgrace that the judge let it happen.

Aside from the cross examination, the media circus would make their lives unbearable. As it is they are getting death threats.

fin12 · 12-03-2019 8:56pm

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 9:04pm

fin12 wrote: »

I watched the first four minutes. It was quite incoherent and he dodged a few questions. It's all very well to say "they were slumber parties", as though adult men having slumber parties with little kids is a normal thing that happens all the time....

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 9:06pm

fin12 wrote: »

Ha that video reminds me of this thread. All set with his answers regardless of the questions/discussion.
Morgan is like, you can see it's difficult to know who to believe and Jermaine is off with the "he said under oath" - rubbish.
The master of deception strikes again.

Ah to live in such a black and white world, it must all be so simple.

The Jackson bios always make for a great read too, they're a messy bunch:

"He began a relationship with Alejandra Genevieve Oaziaza while she was dating his younger brother Randy, with whom she had a daughter and twin sons. He married Oaziaza on March 18, 1995, and the marriage lasted until May 19, 2003. They had two sons."

lee_baby_simms · 12-03-2019 9:19pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I watched the first four minutes. It was quite incoherent and he dodged a few questions. It's all very well to say "they were slumber parties", as though adult men having slumber parties with little kids is a normal thing that happens all the time....

Well that was MJs strategy even 25 years ago. If the baseline of acceptable behaviour can be shifted to the point where sleeping exclusively with pre-pubescent boys is excused as “well he never had a childhood himself” then the power to both carry on abusing and more importantly, get away with it, is with Michael Jackson.

The people defending Michael Jackson remind me of the flat earth people. Basic intuition and common sense are completely absent. I’d be interested to know how many of them are parents themselves.

Flippyfloppy · 12-03-2019 9:30pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

There was another female one...she was caught stealing I think?

You don’t say, she was also discredited?! Shocking!

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Well that was MJs strategy even 25 years ago. If the baseline of acceptable behaviour can be shifted to the point where sleeping exclusively with pre-pubescent boys is excused as “well he never had a childhood himself” then the power to both carry on abusing and more importantly, get away with it, is with Michael Jackson.

The people defending Michael Jackson remind me of the flat earth people. Basic intuition and common sense are completely absent. I’d be interested to know how many of them are parents themselves.

Michael Jackson defenders = 9/11 conspirators = trump supporters = anti vaxers = flat earthers, right? They’ve all gotta be one and the same.

lee_baby_simms · 12-03-2019 9:33pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Michael Jackson defenders = 9/11 conspirators = trump supporters = anti vaxers = flat earthers, right? They’ve all gotta be one and the same.

hahahahaha

Hannibal_Smith · 12-03-2019 9:34pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You don’t say, she was also discredited?! Shocking!

She was i believe yeah. Imagine people defending them selves in a trial. Shocking!

The arrogance of some posters who claim to know it all.

Flippyfloppy · 12-03-2019 9:38pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

She was i believe yeah. Imagine people defending them selves in a trial. Shocking!

The arrogance of some posters who claim to know it all.

Those pesky thieving employees. First they steal, second they claim they’ve witnessed child sexual abuse.

It’s always the way!

Hannibal_Smith · 12-03-2019 9:43pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Those pesky thieving employees. First they steal, second they claim they witness sexual abuse of kids.

It’s always the way!

Dont look it up...see if theres any merit you it. Always the way!

Jerichoholic · 12-03-2019 10:00pm

fin12 wrote: »

Aaron Carter?

Well then, how many s's in innocent?

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 10:14pm

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Aaron Carter?

Well then, how many s's in innocent?

I love his answer to the first question. Haha

Ann22 · 12-03-2019 10:14pm

Apologies if this has been posted already. A list of items found in Neverland during the trial.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Jerichoholic · 12-03-2019 10:31pm

Ann22 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted already. A list of items found in Neverland during the trial.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

That's a lot of images of nude children for an innocent man don't you think?

fryup · 12-03-2019 10:33pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I watched the first four minutes. It was quite incoherent and he dodged a few questions. It's all very well to say "they were slumber parties", as though adult men having slumber parties with little kids is a normal thing that happens all the time....

yes it is weird for an adult man to have slumber parties with children, and MJ was in many ways weird/immature....

....but...that doesn't automatically make him a child abuser now does it??

Ursus Horribilis · 12-03-2019 10:34pm

Jerichoholic wrote: »

That's a lot of images of nude children for an innocent man don't you think?

I'm sure Jackson's defenders will be along with an explanation any minute now.

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 10:36pm

fryup wrote: »

yes it is weird for an adult man to have slumber parties with children, and MJ was in many ways weird/immature....

....but...that doesn't automatically make him a child abuser now does it??

No, it doesn’t. It does create well-founded suspicion though.

fryup · 12-03-2019 10:42pm

and well-founded suspicion...doesn't make you automatically guilty either

KikiLaRue · 12-03-2019 10:44pm

fryup wrote: »

and well-founded suspicion...doesn't make you automatically guilty either

I agree. I can’t say for certain that he’s guilty. But on the balance of probabilities I think he is.

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 10:49pm

fryup wrote: »

and well-founded suspicion...doesn't make you automatically guilty either

The sleepovers aren't the only evidence though are they? It's all the other behaviours and dodgy stuff found by the police, as well as the accusations themselves that lead me to believe he is guilty. Sure his lawyer pretty much admitted Jordy Chandler was telling the truth and that's why they paid. Each factor on its own is creepy and disturbing but him being an abuser really is the most likely outcome when you look at it all together. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics to make it otherwise

is_that_so · 12-03-2019 10:58pm

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Well that was MJs strategy even 25 years ago. If the baseline of acceptable behaviour can be shifted to the point where sleeping exclusively with pre-pubescent boys is excused as “well he never had a childhood himself” then the power to both carry on abusing and more importantly, get away with it, is with Michael Jackson.

You were doing just great and should have stopped here.

fryup · 12-03-2019 11:09pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Sure his lawyer pretty much admitted Jordy Chandler was telling the truth and that's why they paid.

no he didn't

hetuzozaho · 12-03-2019 11:29pm

Apparently his fans have funded an ad campaign on London buses.

Find it hard to get my head around this.

https://twitter.com/itsjoerack/status/1103981359150845953?s=20

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 12-03-2019 11:29pm

Ann22 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted already. A list of items found in Neverland during the trial.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Jaysus. That's pretty damning evidence right there. Lots and lots of those images are not okay for an adult to possess.

ceadaoin. · 12-03-2019 11:35pm

fryup wrote: »

no he didn't

One of his lawyers did. I've posted the quote twice or even three times now. Sure what's one more time

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of “If we don’t get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson”[1]

And for good measure, one of the lead investigators on the case

Dworin: “We had served a search warrant to photograph Michael Jackson. Those photographs corroborated the description that the boy gave us regarding Michael Jackson’s genitals.”

Mankiewicz: “The boy was able to describe discolorations of Jackson’s skin?”

Dworin: “Yes.”

Mankiewicz: “On his genitals, accurately.”

Dworin: “Very much so.”

More details about how the description matched reality can be found in the court papers

Yet the Jackson camp trots out the "he said he was circumcised but he wasn't" line as a gotcha. They fail to mention how he correctly identified distinctive marks caused by vitiligo.

Like I said, mental gymnastics

Jerichoholic · 13-03-2019 12:04am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Apparently his fans have funded an ad campaign on London buses.

Find it hard to get my head around this.

https://twitter.com/itsjoerack/status/1103981359150845953?s=20

I would be ashamed to get on that bus.

brooke 2 · 13-03-2019 12:15am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

All of his animals were abandoned when he left Neverland. Animal rights groups weren't happy about it

And he never contributed anything towards their welfare. :mad:

brooke 2 · 13-03-2019 12:24am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

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

James said that MJ pretended to the server in the shop that he was buying a ring for a woman friend whose finger was about the same size as James's, when, in reality, he was purchasing it for James himself.

Irish Guitarist · 13-03-2019 12:28am

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/111176136/michael-jackson-fans-fund-bus-ads-in-london-proclaiming-his-innocence

Apparently now you're a white supremacist if you believe that a grown man who sleeps with children is a paedophile.

Previously O'Kane has told Vice that he does not regret calling british comic and Leaving Neverland supporter Matt Lucas a "White Supremest Scab (sic)" online, despite having said that people discussing the documentary should refrain from being abusive.

brooke 2 · 13-03-2019 12:32am

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

Also makes it blindingly clear why the Catholic Church got away with its crimes for so long. Some people refuse to see what is right in front of them. :mad:

fryup · 13-03-2019 12:57am

^^^^^^^^^^^^

nobody wants to see abusers getting away with it

but equally we don't want someone who is innocent to be defamed ..and esp when they're not around anymore to defend themselves

brooke 2 · 13-03-2019 1:13am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Apparently his fans have funded an ad campaign on London buses.

Find it hard to get my head around this.

https://twitter.com/itsjoerack/status/1103981359150845953?s=20

I believe there is one also in San Francisco which would lead one to think the Jackson estate is behind it.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments