Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

All true, yet at the same time we are expected to believe that MJ wasn't aware that any of this was wrong because he was damaged and really only a child.

Seems one rule for MJ and another for everyone else.

Very simple question, you could literally put a dozen well known children on the stand as your key witness.

Why would anyone allow the one that claims he was anally raped?

Even if he loved him so much and would do anything for him, etc, etc.

Who as "intelligent" as Jackson was, would take that monumental risk, especially when there was no reason to.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

And thankfully, you do not have any authority on deciding who is or isn’t genuine.

Is it point out the bloody obvious day?

retro:electro

Needs must.

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

They gave glowing references until they were fooked off the gravy train.

Then they tried to get a book deal and couldn't and then went on to sue for 100s of millions of dollars.

The example doesn't even have to be that extreme.

But it works both ways. If you are willing to believe that the accusers are doing it for money, and I don't know if that is the reality or not I certainly do not rule it out, but then the exact same can be said of MJ (when he was alive) and his estate since.

It is in their interests to pay off any possible abused, and they clearly have the money available to do it. We know of one case where he paid off a person to stay quite, wouldn't it be reasonable to think there may be others?

And lets think this through. A victim wants to come forward, but sees the backlash they will face from Twitter etc. And even if they are believed, there is nothing that can be done now. So they are offered money to keep quite and they can take the money and give their family a life they would never have, get the mental help they need. The alternative is to put themselves at the forefront of something like this documentary.

The MJ estate have every reason, monetarily, to keep any and all accusations under wraps. $20m is a huge amount of money to normal people, but a drop in the ocean for an estate like MJ.

So if you want to bring the monetary line into it, and its reasonable to do so, then you need to consider that it could be just the same on the other side.

Boggles

Rattle, rattle!.

:rolleyes:

ToBeFrank123

At this stage I don't know what to believe. It would be great if someone came forward with allegations who had nothing financial to gain from it.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

But it works both ways. If you are willing to believe that the accusers are doing it for money, and I don't know if that is the reality or not I certainly do not rule it out, but then the exact same can be said of MJ (when he was alive) and his estate since.

It is in their interests to pay off any possible abused, and they clearly have the money available to do it. We know of one case where he paid off a person to stay quite, wouldn't it be reasonable to think there may be others?

And lets think this through. A victim wants to come forward, but sees the backlash they will face from Twitter etc. And even if they are believed, there is nothing that can be done now. So they are offered money to keep quite and they can take the money and give their family a life they would never have, get the mental help they need. The alternative is to put themselves at the forefront of something like this documentary.

The MJ estate have every reason, monetarily, to keep any and all accusations under wraps. $20m is a huge amount of money to normal people, but a drop in the ocean for an estate like MJ.

So if you want to bring the monetary line into it, and its reasonable to do so, then you need to consider that it could be just the same on the other side.

So why didn't they just pay Robson off and make him sign a NDA?

turbbo

Boggles wrote: »

So why didn't they just pay Robson off and make him sign a NDA?

How do you know they didn't try?

Boggles

turbbo wrote: »

How do you know they didn't try?

Because there is no evidence to suggest they did, they is 100s of court of documents over this.

Also I imagine Wade would be singing like a canary if they did, it might have even been mentioned in the "documentary".

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Even if he loved him so much and would do anything for him, etc, etc.

Number of reasons. As you yourself state they loved him so much and would no anything.
In many cases the perpetrators believe that they are fully in control of the abused, they can trust them so do as they say.
It was the easiest and surest way to win the trial. What better than to have a person that was there to make the case that nothing ever happened. It powerful and not easily dismissed.
You can bet that MJ didn't simply let the guy turn up on the day. He would have been coached to say this, respond to that, avoid saying this, deny that.
You seem to be under the impression that he was an independent witness.

There are plenty of examples of battered wives sticking up for their abusive husbands, denying everything to the police, their friends, even in court. This is hardly new to you. We know this happens.

We even have cases where mothers will cover for their boyfriends that murdered their children. Devoting and influence can be very powerful.

turbbo

Boggles wrote: »

Because there is no evidence to suggest they did, they is 100s of court of documents over this.

Also I imagine Wade would be singing like a canary if they did, it might have even been mentioned in the "documentary".

Why was mickey so obsessed with kids - why? simple question? Didn't he pay $20 mill back in the day - old saying really applies here - "there is no smoke without a fire"

Bunny Colvin

I've just watched the documentary. I fully believe the two men. Jackson used his fame and wealth to manipulate families to ultimately rape young boys.

The parents should really be looking at themselves. There's one scene in the documentary where Jackson wanted the boy to stay with him for a full year and the Mother was outraged saying 'you can't have my son, we can share him but you can't fully have him." Good looking out for your son there, being willing to share him with Jackson because the prospect of fame and money was there for your family.

Jackson is more akin to Saville than the iconic pop god that he's painted out to be. He was a very disturbed, sick and ultimately dangerous individual.

Ariadne

I honestly don't know what happened there. From the outside it doesn't look good, at best it was inappropriate and at worst it was paedophilia. I'm really not sure if he was just a very damaged man who enjoyed spending time with children in a way that's not deemed acceptable by society (ie bed sharing) or if he was a paedophile.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

It was the easiest and surest way to win the trial

DA Fuq? Surely the surest way was to put up 3 boys who weren't "raped".

For such an "intelligent" predator Jackson would want to be one of the dumbest fooks on the planet to take a risk like that, especially when there was absolutely no reason to. No reason to what do ever.

As for a wife lying for a husband, it's not comparable unless he has dozens of wives he didn't beat to chose from that he can put on the stand.

When you look at it as a whole, instead of a painfully one sided "documentary" complete with a musical score to tell you how to feel, it just does not pass the "smell test".

Generic whataboutery aside.

turbbo

Succubus_ wrote: »

I honestly don't know what happened there. From the outside it doesn't look good, at best it was inappropriate and at worst it was paedophilia. I'm really not sure if he was just a very damaged man who enjoyed spending time with children in a way that's not deemed acceptable by society (ie bed sharing) or if he was a paedophile.

Hang on there - "sharing a bed" wtf. Does it need to be spelled out to the dummies out there? There is no gray here it's black and white he was a paedo.

Leroy42

How is an abused wife covering for her husband different? We know the abuse is taking place (well find out later) but know that she is lying to cover it up.

If the allegations in this documentary are true, then isn't that exactly what happened here?

And in terms of using other boys, as we Cory txts earlier, saying nothing happened to me doesn't prove that it didn't happen. Much stronger to actually get a boy that lived, slept etc with MJ to say that it was all innocent.

There is the other possibility that he came across as the most believable, the one that maintained the story under pressure.

Whilst it may well be one sided, what I don't understand Boggles, is why you are so happy to simply discount everything. The MJ case has all the red flags we have seen countless times before. An authority figure (but in this case many times bigger than the local priest), a willing group around them to help cover their tracks (I mean installing bells on the doors to warn of people approaching?), a cult like following that are prepared to ignore logic to maintain their belief.

Its all there. Doesn't mean its true, but the balance of probabilities, knowing what we know from multiple previous cases such as, but not solely, Saville would at the very least mean you should be seriously questioning MJ and his motives.

monkeybutter

some bad parenting there

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is an abused wife covering for her husband different?

Because he has only one wife.

Like I said if he had the choice of 100s of wives to put on the stand, wives he didn't abuse, do you still think he would have taken the monumental stupid risk of putting the abused wife on the stand?

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is the other possibility that he came across as the most believable, the one that maintained the story under pressure.

Again just an nonsensical bat shít lunatic risk.

The best person on any witness stand is the one telling the truth.

Anyway we have seen when he tried to give his deposition in 2013 he completely buckled under pressure because he was making things up.

Edgware

turbbo wrote: »

Why was mickey so obsessed with kids - why? simple question? Didn't he pay $20 mill back in the day - old saying really applies here - "there is no smoke without a fire"

Has Bubbles being asked to make a statement or has he been bought off too?

valoren

Leroy42 wrote: »

How is an abused wife covering for her husband different? We know the abuse is taking place (well find out later) but know that she is lying to cover it up.

Part of stockholm syndrome is that the abused covers for the abuser to prevent further abuse. You can have a guard talking to a wife with two black eyes listening to her say she just fell or hit a door and there is nothing they can do about it.

I think there may have been an aspect of this at play with Robson. He had cultivated a reputation and garnered steady work as a choreographer based on his close association with Jackson. The old it's not what you know, it's who you know. To testify against him might mean that while justice was done to convict a child abuser, he would have faced personal consequences for testifying against him. He'd always be the guy who sealed Jackson's fate. The work would dry up, he would become a pariah and an open target, as while Jackson may have been in prison, there was still his rabid fan base who would be only too happy to harass him and make his and his families life a living hell. It was probably easier to just go along with the "We had sleepover but there was nothing sexual etc". Just like the battered wife who says she walked into a door to prevent future violence.

The thing is he didn't have to testify at all. Safechuck took that option. Why would Robson do that when he didn't have to and open himself up to perjury charges?

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Because he has only one wife.

Like I said if he had the choice of 100s of wives to put on the stand, wives he didn't abuse, do you still think he would have taken the monumental stupid risk of putting the abused wife on the stand?

You are completely missing the point, deliberately I think.

It is irrelevant how many wives. The point you are trying to make is that it was a massive risk in putting him on the stand, yet I have given you concrete examples of where people are abused yet not only deny everything but would have taken the stand in the defence of the husband.

A

Boggles wrote: »

gain just an nonsensical bat shít lunatic risk.

The best person on any witness stand is the one telling the truth.

Anyway we have seen when he tried to give his deposition in 2013 he completely buckled under pressure because he was making things up.

The best witness on the stand on the most believable one. People have been known to lie under oath. This boy was not only in awe of MJ, but totally under his control through a combination of shame, adulation and fear.

It has happened before yet you seem totally unable to be able to understand that it could have happened in this case.

And in terms of the risk. Well that depends on what went on before the trial. As I mentioned, they didn't just put the guy up there on a whim. He would have been coached, given all possible questions, brought through every possible question and how to respond. Do you really think this didn't happen?

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

The point you are trying to make is that it was a massive risk in putting him on the stand, yet I have given you concrete examples of where people are abused yet not only deny everything but would have taken the stand in the defence of the husband.

You haven't given me anything concrete, you have given generic whataboutery that has absolutely no bearing on the point I made.

Leroy42 wrote: »

This boy was not only in awe of MJ, but totally under his control through a combination of shame, adulation and fear.

He was an adult when he testified in the trial.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And in terms of the risk. Well that depends on what went on before the trial. As I mentioned, they didn't just put the guy up there on a whim. He would have been coached, given all possible questions, brought through every possible question and how to respond. Do you really think this didn't happen?

Of course it happened, but the point remains, you don't put the guy on the stand against a less than honest and aggressive prosecution if he had been "raped" by the defendant.

He was the defense key witness, the first one to take the stand.

I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing now, you know how ridiculous it sounds.

Leroy42

OK, so you want me to actually post cases of where abused wives have defended their partners? So you are claiming that it never happens, isn't even possible? Because that is what you are saying. That by giving evidence it shows it never happened as no way a abused person would take the stand in favour of the abuser.

But there are countless examples of that happening. It is nothing to do with whataboutery, generic of whatever.

Of course he was an adult, but if you want to take the line that MJ was a boy trapped in a mans body, why are you so quick to deny that he would be trapped in his childhood situation.

So, you accept that he could have been coached, that MJ had the best lawyers and that they had plenty of time to get the story straight? That he was the key defence witness only shows how confident they were, it tells you nothing about the facts behind it.

I'm not arguing at all, I am trying to understand why your default position is that MJ is innocent and every line you post is aimed at showing that. My own view is that there is credible reasons to have major doubts, most notably that he slept with young boys and tried to keep that a secret. That screams out to me.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, so you want me to actually post cases of where abused wives have defended their partners? So you are claiming that it never happens, isn't even possible? Because that is what you are saying. That by giving evidence it shows it never happened as no way a abused person would take the stand in favour of the abuser.

But there are countless examples of that happening. It is nothing to do with whataboutery, generic of whatever.

Of course he was an adult, but if you want to take the line that MJ was a boy trapped in a mans body, why are you so quick to deny that he would be trapped in his childhood situation.

So, you accept that he could have been coached, that MJ had the best lawyers and that they had plenty of time to get the story straight? That he was the key defence witness only shows how confident they were, it tells you nothing about the facts behind it.

I'm not arguing at all, I am trying to understand why your default position is that MJ is innocent and every line you post is aimed at showing that. My own view is that there is credible reasons to have major doubts, most notably that he slept with young boys and tried to keep that a secret. That screams out to me.

Jesus, it is extremely simply. We are all aware of abuse wife and Stockholm syndrome. It's all moot to my very simply point.

You are going on trial which if found guilty you could be put away for a significant chunk of your life.

An important part of your defense is character witnesses who spent significant amounts of time with you when they were children.

To simplify it more.

You have to pick 3 from 10.

9 you didn't molest, 1 you anally raped.

Which 3 do you pick?

8-10

showpony1 wrote: »

So is the consensus Robson was paid to give the defense in 2005 & was lying in 2005 or is lying now.

In 2012 Robson wrote a book draft that was never published where he described himself as "a master of deception"

So I guess he could be lying at any stage of his life.

Deebles McBeebles

turbbo wrote: »

Hang on there - "sharing a bed" wtf. Does it need to be spelled out to the dummies out there? There is no gray here it's black and white he was a paedo.

Its not black and white though is it? If it was we wouldn't still be debating it. He would have been convicted and imprisoned. You and I, we don't know.

Boggles

8-10 wrote: »

In 2012 Robson wrote a book draft that was never published where he described himself as "a master of deception"

So I guess he could be lying at any stage of his life.

He also kept changing his story about when he wrote the book.

He went as far to remove all meta data from the digital documents.

Not only "a master of deception" quite tech savvy too it would appear.

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus, it is extremely simply. We are all aware of abuse wife and Stockholm syndrome. It's all moot to my very simply point.

You are going on trial which if found guilty you could be put away for a significant chunk of your life.

An important part of your defense is character witnesses who spent significant amounts of time with you when they were children.

To simplify it more.

You have to pick 3 from 10.

9 you didn't molest, 1 you anally raped.

Which 3 do you pick?

Everything is simple if you look at it from a narrow enough angle.

You are making a few assumptions.
1) that he was their first choice.
2) that the others were willing to give evidence but they choose him instead
3) that he had accepted that what happened to him was wrong and not his fault.

You also seem to be simply waving away the very real possibility that they coached him to lie under oath. Yet it is widely known that this happens (I gave you the example of an abused wife standing up for her husband) so I fail to see how you can discount it.
Additionally, you are failing to take account of the very real possibility, indeed probability, of Stockholm syndrome and you certainly do not seem to appreciate how this can manifest itself.

Take the example of religious fundamentalists. They will argue, sometimes within the same debate, two almost opposing positions in order to maintain their central point.

He may very well have figured that telling the truth now would not only destroy MJ but also himself and his family, and for what? People like you would have dismissed it anyway, So he took the easy route out (I say easy but in all likelihood he was so brainwashed as to not actually consider what was happening to him as abuse and thus he was telling the truth, as he saw it, that MJ never abused him.

I understand the point the you are trying to make, the problem is that it doesn't hold up under any form of scrutiny. Whilst I am willing to see both sides of it you are locked into only seeing it as proof that MJ is innocent and thus you need to be right.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

Everything is simple if you look at it from a narrow enough angle.

You are making a few assumptions.
1) that he was their first choice.
2) that the others were willing to give evidence but they choose him instead
3) that he had accepted that what happened to him was wrong and not his fault.

You also seem to be simply waving away the very real possibility that they coached him to lie under oath. Yet it is widely known that this happens (I gave you the example of an abused wife standing up for her husband) so I fail to see how you can discount it.
Additionally, you are failing to take account of the very real possibility, indeed probability, of Stockholm syndrome and you certainly do not seem to appreciate how this can manifest itself.

Take the example of religious fundamentalists. They will argue, sometimes within the same debate, two almost opposing positions in order to maintain their central point.

He may very well have figured that telling the truth now would not only destroy MJ but also himself and his family, and for what? People like you would have dismissed it anyway, So he took the easy route out (I say easy but in all likelihood he was so brainwashed as to not actually consider what was happening to him as abuse and thus he was telling the truth, as he saw it, that MJ never abused him.

I understand the point the you are trying to make, the problem is that it doesn't hold up under any form of scrutiny. Whilst I am willing to see both sides of it you are locked into only seeing it as proof that MJ is innocent and thus you need to be right.

Jaysus, I asked you a very simple question and you bring up religious fundamentalists.

Can you not just answer it.

I asked what you would do by the way, not anyone else.

turbbo

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Its not black and white though is it? If it was we wouldn't still be debating it. He would have been convicted and imprisoned. You and I, we don't know.

I did say dummies were debating.

turbbo

Edgware wrote: »

Has Bubbles being asked to make a statement or has he been bought off too?

Poor bubbles!!!

turbbo

How do you know it's bedtime at MJ's house?

- When the big hand touches the little hand.

Deebles McBeebles

turbbo wrote: »

What was he doing with kids in his bed? - he's a nonce! end of. Wither these guys are looking for money or not. The fact remains he was seriously shady - what is unbelievable is he got away with it.

turbbo wrote: »

How do you know they didn't try?

turbbo wrote: »

Why was mickey so obsessed with kids - why? simple question? Didn't he pay $20 mill back in the day - old saying really applies here - "there is no smoke without a fire"

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Its not black and white though is it? If it was we wouldn't still be debating it. He would have been convicted and imprisoned. You and I, we don't know.

turbbo wrote: »

I did say dummies were debating.

Aye, better to post a joke that's older than most Boards users while blindly sticking to your convictions.

turbbo wrote: »

How do you know it's bedtime at MJ's house?

- When the big hand touches the little hand.

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Jaysus, I asked you a very simple question and you bring up religious fundamentalists.

Can you not just answer it.

I asked what you would do by the way, not anyone else.

I have never been in that position, so very hard to answer.

I imagine that I would look for what I thought would be the most credible person I could put on the stand to speak in my defence. I would then work with that witness to ensure they put out the story that best suited my needs.

If there was any issues that they could talk about that I would prefer them not to, I would ask them to lie for me, for us. Think of your family, imagine the shame on your mother if you admit to what you did. Imagine what will happen to your brothers and sisters. And forget about ever working in the US again, or getting access to famous people or parties. Remember, I only did any of that because you asked me to, it was your fault for it all, you let me do it.

If you tell the truth, nobody is going to believe you anyway. Who are you? A nobody that I took into my home. A nobody whose family needs you to stay with me to continue to enjoy nice things. But if you try to tell any stories, I will tear you apart. I will tear your family apart. I will say it was your fault, your parents fault. That I only wanted to be friends but now you make all these crazy stories up for money.

If I can make all that up in a few minutes, don't you reckon his lawyers could have done much more in the time they had?

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Well there is, and Cory Feldman has stated it again last night. Text speak is tragic, but you get the jist.

Feldman was already 13 or something when he met Michael. Too old already.

Also, just because he didn't abuse that person, doesnt mean he didn't abuse anyone at all.

turbbo

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Aye, better to post a joke that's older than most Boards users while blindly sticking to your convictions.

Ahh a mickey fan - poor mickey fans!

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it has, in lieu of any actual evidence. What more can people on the internet who have a passing interest in the case go on? He died in 2009.

It echoes what an awful lot of people have said about Jackson, including Robson, so it is not just Corey or a one off factual experience.

What do you think of Robsons "memories" just coinciding with the Jackson estate booting him off the gravy train?

What did he say - he didn't realize anally raping a child was wrong until he held his child in his hands, he was 31. :rolleyes:

He was also financially fooked and the wife was about to boot him.

Does that pass the "smell test" to you?

That's not what he said at all. Have you actually watched it yet? If you have and you still don't believe them then I don't believe that you aren't a crazed, delusional fan tbh

The alternative is that you are just a run of the mill paedophile apologist. Neither are a great look

turbbo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That's not what he said at all. Have you actually watched it yet? If you have and you still don't believe them then I don't believe that you aren't a crazed, delusional fan tbh

I'm obviously trolling - a deluded Mickey fan is worth trolling.:D

Deebles McBeebles

turbbo wrote: »

How do you know it's bedtime at MJ's house?

- When the big hand touches the little hand.

turbbo wrote: »

Ahh a mickey fan - poor mickey fans!

I think we've found your level, turbbo.

turbbo

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I think we've found your level, turbbo.

Well we all know you're a deluded fan too.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

They gave glowing references until they were fooked off the gravy train.

Then they tried to get a book deal and couldn't and then went on to sue for 100s of millions of dollars.

The example doesn't even have to be that extreme.

Again, watch the documentary. Safechuck told Jackson to **** off when he came calling looking for him to testify in 2005. He was still a child when he defended him in the 90s. He hasn't been "on the gravy train" for years.

is_that_so

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Again, watch the documentary. Safechuck told Jackson to **** off when he came calling looking for him to testify in 2005. He was still a child when he defended him in the 90s. He hasn't been "on the gravy train" for years.

You seem to be placing a whole lot of trust in a "documentary", which by all accounts makes little attempt at any balance.

ceadaoin.

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem to be placing a whole lot of trust in a "documentary", which by all accounts makes little attempt at any balance.

have you watched it yourself?

turbbo

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem to be placing a whole lot of trust in a "documentary", which by all accounts makes little attempt at any balance.

I think most sensible people are. It's gone mainstream - which really means it's only hardcore fans that still believe he was innocent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/06/oprah-winfrey-leaving-neverland-is-much-bigger-than-michael-jackson.html

is_that_so

ceadaoin. wrote: »

have you watched it yourself?

No fan of such stuff at all. I have zero interest in wasting four hours on a piece of programming aiming to tell me what to think.

is_that_so

turbbo wrote: »

I think most sensible people are. It's gone mainstream - which really means it's only hardcore fans that still believe he was innocent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/06/oprah-winfrey-leaving-neverland-is-much-bigger-than-michael-jackson.html

The old juvenile with us or ag'in' us? I don't know what he was nor do you but believe you know.

ceadaoin.

is_that_so wrote: »

No fan of such stuff at all. I have zero interest in wasting four hours on a piece of programming aiming to tell me what to think.

Well then you can't really comment on it's content can you? Many of the standard put downs are addressed. It's not telling you what to think, it's allowing these men to tell their stories and let people decide.

Good for you though, don't make any attempt to challenge your views, just keep defending an obvious peadophile

turbbo

is_that_so wrote: »

The old juvenile with us or ag'in' us? I don't know what he was nor do you but believe you know.

Same way you don't know what Jimmy Saville was I suppose :rolleyes:

is_that_so

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well then you can't really comment on it's content can you? Many of the standard put downs are addressed. It's not telling you what to think, it's allowing these men to tell their stories and let people decide.

Good for you though, don't make any attempt to challenge your views, just keep defending an obvious peadophile

And there we have it. The childish well if you don't agree with me defence. I think he was a very strange man in a very very strange situation. I have no problem changing my views provided there is actual truth and not a televised version of it. I don't think we'll ever know for certain but it doesn't stop people lining up to give opinions on it anyway.

is_that_so

turbbo wrote: »

Same way you don't know what Jimmy Saville was I suppose :rolleyes:

Nah I knew he was creepy and there was a whole lot of evidence.