Micky Jackson in trouble again

sligeach

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

Telling people to be open-minded and then finish off with calling Michael an "obvious paedophile". Well done you.

Doctors room ghost

The day I saw him buying the green giant statues I said to the wife there’s something up with that fcuker there.and a truck load of vases.wouldnt trust him as far as I’d throw him.a quare hawk among birds.

8-10

And in fairness to those saying "watch the documentary", it's actually only out tonight in this side of the pond. Channel 4 have the exclusive.

So a bit of patience on that part, many of us are intending on watching it once it's out over here and I'm sure it'll drive a lot more discussion on this thread from tomorrow

monkeybutter

is_that_so wrote: »

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.

Would ya fell better if it was in the written word? Michael Jackson for dummies suit ya better?


Hilarious Ignorance

8-10

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

The day I saw him buying the green giant statues I said to the wife there’s something up with that fcuker there.and a truck load of vases.wouldnt trust him as far as I’d throw him.a quare hawk among birds.

What does a truckload of vases signify? I'm missing the link you're making here?

is_that_so

monkeybutter wrote: »

Would ya fell better if it was in the written word? Michael Jackson for dummies suit ya better?


Hilarious Ignorance

Oh I think there's a reason why countries have legal systems, so that this type of genius reasoning does not actually determine guilt.

is_that_so

8-10 wrote: »

What does a truckload of vases signify? I'm missing the link you're making here?

Being a weirdo?

ceadaoin.

8-10 wrote: »

And in fairness to those saying "watch the documentary", it's actually only out tonight in this side of the pond. Channel 4 have the exclusive.

So a bit of patience on that part, many of us are intending on watching it once it's out over here and I'm sure it'll drive a lot more discussion on this thread from tomorrow

Fair enough, I forgot it hadn't been on there yet. I'll be interested to see what you think after it. I mean, it's not like there is a smoking gun or anything but the men's stories are very believable and their demeanors etc. Jimmy in particular is clearly a very damaged person and it's the performance of the century if he is lying.

Doctors room ghost

8-10 wrote: »

What does a truckload of vases signify? I'm missing the link you're making here?

A truckload as in he bought about 50 huge expensive vases that would fill a truck.what the fcuk would you want with them. The interviewer doing the show asked him where he would put them and he hadn’t a clue.

ceadaoin.

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

A truckload as in he bought about 50 huge expensive vases that would fill a truck.what the fcuk would you want with them. The interviewer doing the show asked him where he would put them and he hadn’t a clue.

That's why he died pretty much broke.he wouldn't stop spending. It's taken a while for his estate to bounce back. That's why his family are so pissed off, it's them who stand to be thrown off the gravy train at this point, not the accusers

Sephiroth_dude

turbbo wrote: »

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

MOD

Do us all a favour and don't post in this thread again.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

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?

I read that in Liam Neesons voice.

The simple answer is you put the man on the stand that wasn't anally raped.

But you know that.

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

I read that in Liam Neesons voice.

The simple answer is you put the man on the stand that wasn't anally raped.

But you know that.

Ah, so you just ignore anything that I say and stick rigidly to your position.

It seems you are unable to consider anything other than the simple. 'It must be this because its the one I would do' seems to be the only rationale behind your reasoning.

I guess you are right. He was totally telling the truth then and now off the top of his head, simply made up all this stuff.

And got the other person to make up their own story as well.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

That's not what he said at all. Have you actually watched it yet?

It isn't out yet over here.

But you do realize none of this is new, this are "old" allegations, he has given multiple interviews about them.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If you have and you still don't believe them then I don't believe that you aren't a crazed, delusional fan tbh

But I'm not a fan, I couldn't give 2 fooks if you believe me or not.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

Is there something wrong with you, seriously? What an absolute vile disgusting thing to accuse any one of.

FFS! :mad:

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems you are unable to consider anything other than the simple.

Most logical.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I couldn't give 2 fooks

The word is fuck. Jesus Christ. Unless you’re doing a Johnny Vegas impression just write the proper word ffs. Albeit it’s about the least irrating thing about your posts it’s still irritating nonetheless.

Boggles

fOOking Hell!

Rattle, Rattle!

:rolleyes:

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

It isn't out yet over here.

But you do realize none of this is new, this are "old" allegations, he has given multiple interviews about them.



But I'm not a fan, I couldn't give 2 fooks if you believe me or not.




Is there something wrong with you, seriously? What an absolute vile disgusting thing to accuse any one of.

FFS! :mad:

You are defending down to the ground a man who has been accused of abusing several children and who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile. I'm not sure what else to call it tbh.

You focus on Robson and pretty much ignore Safechuck. Has he done interviews before this? Aside from when he was a child he hasn't defended Jackson publicly. I'm not sure you can cast aspersions on him or his character

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile.

What are these behaviours exactly?

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Most logical.

So only the most logical can possibly happen? Is that what you are saying now?

But most logical based on what? Your position, his position at the time? You claim 'most logical' without knowing all the facts, without which you can't possibly claim its the most logical.

retro:electro

Believing Jackson is innocent requires an absurd leap in logic to the extent you need to almost reprogramme your brain to ignore every single red flag and spidey sense we’ve ever learned to be suspicious of and excuse inappropriate behaviour purely because he happens to have money, and make a one off justification for creepy behaviour and give allowances where no other person the world over would be given them. People would rather believe he was the default victim of continual misfortune through no fault of his own than acknowledge that maybe the old man who liked to share his bed with little boys actually did do inappropriate things with them.

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You are defending down to the ground a man who has been accused of abusing several children and who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile. I'm not sure what else to call it tbh.

You focus on Robson and pretty much ignore Safechuck. Has he done interviews before this? Aside from when he was a child he hasn't defended Jackson publicly. I'm not sure you can cast aspersions on him or his character

This is nonsense. In fact there's been a whole pile of nonsense spewed about Jackson pretty much his whole life.

Its easy to make accusations against the dead, particularly if you are trying to get a payout from their estate.

We don't really know if Jackson is guilty or not, only a criminal trial on front of a judge and jury can determine that.

I'm reminded of the recent Yewtree witchhunt in the UK. Yes it caught a number of people but importantly they were tried and convicted in a court of law. Some on the otherhand were tried and found wholly innocent. Some like Ted Heath as well as other prominent politicians, some dead now, had their names dragged through the mud but with little hard evidence to back up the accusations. One of the main accusers is currently on trial for perverting the course of justice, ie lying.

We need to see more solid evidence before rushing to judgement. Jackson was investigated for decades by the police and they found nothing.

Jackson may be guilty, he may not be. Its very difficult to say based on the testimony of two guys who have an agenda. If there wasn't money involved, I'd believe them right away. But until we see further solid evidence we only have their word.

sligeach

8-10 wrote: »

And in fairness to those saying "watch the documentary", it's actually only out tonight in this side of the pond. Channel 4 have the exclusive.

So a bit of patience on that part, many of us are intending on watching it once it's out over here and I'm sure it'll drive a lot more discussion on this thread from tomorrow

Ray Darcy didn't wait before judging. On 31st January he said that right after Liveline had finished, where another pr1ck had been on Liveline and went largely unchecked by Joe, spouting allegations as fact, hadn't seen the show, sure nobody had outside of Sundance. He compared Jackson to Hitler, talked about Jimmy Saville and other proven scumbags. No balance, nobody to challenge his opinion. These are allegations that stink rotten of bull$h1t, a simple Google search reveals the truth.

He starts his BS around 40:45.

https://cdn.rasset.ie/manifest/audio/2019/0131/20190131_rteradio1-liveline-liveline_cl10992706_10995105_261_/manifest.m3u8

Ray then comes on at 3, immediately following the news and starts off by saying after listening to the pr1ck on Liveline that he wouldn't be playing Michael Jackson music in future.

Judge, jury and executioner, a fine example of how the media just jump on the bandwagon without seeing the documentary or doing any research that debunks these 2 proven liars.

Then yesterday he had the dirtbag director of the mockumentary, Dan Reed on his radio show.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You are defending down to the ground a man who has been accused of abusing several children and who displays literally every single behaviour of a paedophile. I'm not sure what else to call it tbh.

I'm not defending anyone, I'm objectively looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on what I think is most probably.

But why do you feel the need to call anyone anything, especially something so vile, just because they disagree with your opinion?

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

So only the most logical can possibly happen? Is that what you are saying now?

But most logical based on what? Your position, his position at the time? You claim 'most logical' without knowing all the facts, without which you can't possibly claim its the most logical.

In lieu of all the facts, then yes leaning on the must logical scenario is prudent. It's pretty well established.

You can go down as many rabbit holes of conjecture that you want but that is itself more fantasy than fact.

SusieBlue

retro:electro wrote: »

Believing Jackson is innocent requires an absurd leap in logic to the extent you need to almost reprogramme your brain to ignore every single red flag and spidey sense we’ve ever learned to be suspicious of and excuse inappropriate behaviour purely because he happens to have money, and make a one off justification for creepy behaviour and give allowances where no other person the world over would be given them. People would rather believe he was the default victim of continual misfortune through no fault of his own than acknowledge that maybe the old man who liked to share his bed with little boys actually did do inappropriate things with them.

Completely agree.
Change the context from "befriending" little boys, to "befriending" little girls and I guarantee there would be no one here defending him.

Ironically I've seen some of the people jumping to his defense here bemoaning mens issues being ignored in favour of womens, and posting about how females are the more favoured gender elsewhere on Boards.

Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.
The mind boggles.

As an aside it confirms why men are less likely report sexual abuse and assault than women are.

Boggles

SusieBlue wrote: »

Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.

There isn't one "sane" person on this thread that says that is "perfectly ok".

Swing and miss I'm afraid.

Ashbourne hoop

SusieBlue wrote: »

Completely agree.
Change the context from "befriending" little boys, to "befriending" little girls and I guarantee there would be no one here defending him.

Ironically I've seen some of the people jumping to his defense here bemoaning mens issues being ignored in favour of womens, and posting about how females are the more favoured gender elsewhere on Boards.

Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.
The mind boggles.

As an aside it confirms why men are less likely report sexual abuse and assault than women are.

Don't recall reading anyone saying this on the thread....

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

In lieu of all the facts, then yes leaning on the must logical scenario is prudent. It's pretty well established.

You can go down as many rabbit holes of conjecture that you want but that is itself more fantasy than fact.

But again, its only logical from your perspective. You have created a narrative without all the facts, into which this 'most logical' fits perfectly.

You asked the question, why would he get this guy to be the star witness and not others, and I pointed out many reasons why that would be logical from a certain perspective.

What we do know is that this guy stood up in court and stated that MJ had never done anything, and then years later claimed he did. So either he was lying then or he is lying now. I have provided you with plenty of recent examples of people lying to cover abusers and only later coming forward with the truth so we know this can happen.

But even if you want to stick to the line that he was telling the truth then, which your position on why would MJ place him as a star defender is based on, then one needs to ask why he would not only lie now, but also get a totally unconnected person to lie at the same time.

SusieBlue

Boggles wrote: »

There isn't one "sane" person on this thread that says that is "perfectly ok".

Swing and miss I'm afraid.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Don't recall reading anyone saying this on the thread....

I've seen plenty of posts dismissing him as an odd, eccentric character who meant no harm.

Boggles

SusieBlue wrote: »

I've seen plenty of posts dismissing him as an odd, eccentric character who meant no harm.

Make a claim, post it up.

Ashbourne hoop

SusieBlue wrote: »

I've seen plenty of posts dismissing him as an odd, eccentric character who meant no harm.

You said "Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.
The mind boggles. "I don't recall anyone saying this.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

But again, its only logical from your perspective. You have created a narrative without all the facts, into which this 'most logical' fits perfectly.

You asked the question, why would he get this guy to be the star witness and not others, and I pointed out many reasons why that would be logical from a certain perspective.
.

But it isn't just from my perspective.

Defense Trials 101.

Never ever put a potential hostile witness on the stand. Especially if you don't have to.

The prosecution actually did this with the boys mother in 2005, the prosecution barrister had to object to his own witness. :P

She was one of the main reasons the trial fell apart according to the Jury members.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Make a claim, post it up.

Well here is one, comparing Michael sharing a bed with children to just kids hanging out. This despite the fact that Michael was in his 30s at the time

sligeach wrote: »

What sex did you mostly hang out with as a kid. I think most boys hung around with mostly lads.

Leroy42

Totally agree, but I am pretty sure they were already sure he wouldn't be a hostile witness, for the reasons I have pointed out many times but you continue to ignore.

I get it, you believe totally that the testimony he gave at the trial was 100% true. That is was given without any direction, but that everything he is saying now is a bunch of lies simply to make money.

There are plenty of examples of prosecution witness going onto the stand and suddenly opting for take the defence side. It would be logical for abused wifes to take the stand against their husband but for some illogical reason they don't. Logic is always that straighforward as you seem to think.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

I get it, you believe totally that the testimony he gave at the trial was 100% true. That is was given without any coercion or direction, but that everything he is saying now is a bunch of lies simply to make money.

Hang on, I certainly believe there was direction which would be standard fare but not coercion.

Where are you getting this from, there is absolutely no evidence of this and not even Robson himself is claiming it AFAIK?

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on, I certainly believe there was direction which would be standard fare but not coercion.

Where are you getting this from, there is absolutely no evidence of this and not even Robson himself is claiming it AFAIK?

Absolutely right, I have amended the post to remove it.

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

Absolutely right, I have amended the post to remove it.

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

In every trial prosecution and defense witnesses will be directed and prepared.

It's pretty standard fair. It's called Witness Preparation and is part of any lawyers training.

First link I came across.

https://www.kramerslaw.com/evidence/testifying-tips

The boys mother in 2005 broke every single one of those "rules".

She was a hostile witness and is the very reason you don't put them up unless you absolutely have to.

Coercion on the under hand is illegal.

Leroy42

So yet again you totally fail to answer a direct question. I am picking up a pattern here.

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

So yet again you totally fail to answer a direct question. I am picking up a pattern here.

Easy there, I answered the question as best I could

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you accept there was some direction? To what extent, what was the limit that was placed on this direction?

How would I know, I wasn't there? How would anyone here know? Jacksons lawyers know and Robson himself would know, but he has made no complaints about it.

But there would almost be certainly a run through of the questions and potential questions the prosecution may ask a witness.

You cannot instruct a witness not to the tell the truth, because not only will you not be able practice law anymore you will go to prison if caught, you chose not to put them on the stand.

Is there actual evidence of this, or are you just gone down another rabbit hole of conjecture?

If you are, it's slightly odd that you have a massive problem with the most plausible logical scenario but you have no problem playing fantasy.

Sleeper12

Leroy42 wrote:

I get it, you believe totally that the testimony he gave at the trial was 100% true. That is was given without any direction, but that everything he is saying now is a bunch of lies simply to make money.

You do realise that in the documentary they were coached, given direction and had take after take to get the story just right. It wasn't a straight question & answer session. It was rehearsed, coached and directed

Jimbob1977

The scenario is exactly like Jimmy Saville.

Both men went to their graves with no convictions against their names.

If only they had been held properly accountable during their lifetimes.

You can't convict a corpse.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Completely agree.
Change the context from "befriending" little boys, to "befriending" little girls and I guarantee there would be no one here defending him.

Ironically I've seen some of the people jumping to his defense here bemoaning mens issues being ignored in favour of womens, and posting about how females are the more favoured gender elsewhere on Boards.

Then on this thread they are saying its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis.
The mind boggles.

As an aside it confirms why men are less likely report sexual abuse and assault than women are.

any posts that i have read that have commented on jackson sharing a bed with children have said that it was not normal behaviour and it was wrong. that it proves jackson was a strange individual, but such behaviour alone is not proof of a crime or paedophilia. i have not read any posts that have said jackson sharing a bed with children is okay, all though i haven't read every single post in the thread. so if anyone has said it was okay, i'd suspect it is a very very minority view probably only shared by 1 or 2 posters at most. quite rightly, it's not a widely held view if it is even held at all. jackson has been investigated for years. there has been 1 trial with a not guilty outcome. if jackson genuinely was a paedophile rather then simply a strange oddball then there would be something of substance to show it, something which would insure that even the most hardened jackson fan wouldn't be able to defend or explain away his behaviour and wouldn't be able to come to any other conclusion then he was a paedophile. but nothing. there is no question jackson sharing a bed with strange children was not normal behaviour. that it was wrong behaviour even if his intentions were innocent. however to accuse him of being an actual paedophile does need serious proof and simply sharing a bed with children isn't itself enough proof as abnormal as it is .
when someone is highly deffensive of jackson, someone who it seems benefited hugely because of jackson, eventually turns around and says the opposite, and it turns out that they seem to have changed their tune when they no longer seem to be reaping the benefits they got from being within the jackson circle, then it is not surprising that people will be suspicious of them, their words and the motives for them making their allegations.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I've seen plenty of posts dismissing him as an odd, eccentric character who meant no harm.

to be fair, that is very different to people saying that its perfectly ok for a grown man to share a bed with a little boy he isn't related to on a regular basis. it's clearly not. one can absolutely believe that jackson was an oddball who meant no harm, but still agree that sharing the bed with a little boy was abnormal and wrong behaviour and that he should have not under any circumstances, engaged in such behaviour.

sligeach

Michael Jackson's nephew Taj defends his uncle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWYMPF00q2k

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AWYMPF00q2k

ceadaoin.

I don't know if the Oprah interview with them and the director afterwards will be shown there? It's definitely worth a watch. Abuse survivors in the audience explain (including Anthony Edwards from ER who spoke out about his abuse last year) why they lied for years and denied their abuse. It really is a very common thing. Given how prevalent child abuse is, there are more people denying their abuse than are making false allegations.

His family are the ones with the vested interest in shutting down victims. They stand to lose a lot of money. Remember when Latoya admitted he was abuser and that she herself was sexually abused as a child (not by Michael, I think Joe?) All his defenders are quick to accept her later claim that her husband forced her to say that but the idea that Jackson groomed these children into defending him (as abusers are known to do) is just completely ludicrous?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Remember when Latoya admitted he was abuser and that she herself was sexually abused as a child (not by Michael, I think Joe?) All his defenders are quick to accept her later claim that her husband forced her to say that

He almost beat her to death in forcing her to say it.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

but the idea that Jackson groomed these children into defending him (as abusers are known to do) is just completely ludicrous?

What is completely ludicrous is putting one of them on the stand as the first key witness. As Jacksons nephew said above, one foul word from Robson and Jackson is going to prison for the rest of his life.

But fook the logic right, we just all love paedo's?

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

He almost beat her to death in forcing her to say it.



What is completely ludicrous is putting one of them on the stand as the first key witness. As Jacksons nephew said above, one foul word from Robson and Jackson is going to prison for the rest of his life.

But fook the logic right, we just all love paedo's?

It's perfectly logical when you take into account the fact that he was groomed from 7 years of age. And actually in the doc he says he told Michael no at first, that he wouldn't testify. It was his mother who convinced him to do it because he still couldn't bring himself to tell her of the abuse and justify to her why he wouldn't and she was on at him to "help his dear friend" or whatever.

Logic all over the place, to me at least

Bunny Colvin

Boggles wrote: »

What is completely ludicrous is putting one of them on the stand as the first key witness. As Jacksons nephew said above, one foul word from Robson and Jackson is going to prison for the rest of his life.

But fook the logic right, we just all love paedo's?

His defence team probably thought it was the worth the risk, it was very credible testimony considering the fact that he had spent a lot of time with Jackson when he was a child.

Robson also said he was coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say.

Boggles

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

His defence team probably thought it was the worth the risk,

There isn't a defense team in the world that would risk that, not a competent one anyway.

Why would they, the case against Jackson was so flimsy and farcical it would have been suicide to do it.

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

Robson also said he was coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say.

Absolute standard practice.

But you are forgetting he was cross examined, it was brutal and extreme apparently. He flew through it, as did his sister and mother who also testified.

Fast forward 8 years later when he is telling another "truth" under deposition, he couldn't get half his story straight.

sligeach

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

His defence team probably thought it was the worth the risk, it was very credible testimony considering the fact that he had spent a lot of time with Jackson when he was a child.

Robson also said he was coached and told exactly what to say and what not to say.

Right, because his defense team knew Michael was a paedophile and had abused Robson, but whatever, took a chance anyway, because it was only like Michael's freedom at stake, his reputation, his legacy, his fortune, etc. It would have been beyond ludicrous for Michael to want Robson to take the stand as a witness, he was the first defense witness, had he abused him.

But you are right though, it was credible testimony, because Robson told the truth during the trial.

I think you're mixing up that last line with his acting in Leaving Neverland.