Micky Jackson in trouble again

tigger123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I better stop giving my nephews gifts so if thats the case. For fear of being labelled something. Because thats the direction society is sadly heading.

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

retro:electro

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Retro, as much as I don't want to engage you again, you've embarrassed yourself today. All you've done is make sly digs at people while sticking your fingers in your ears when someone asks you a question that you find tough. A completely closed mind when it comes to anything other than your own opinion. Ignore and deflect. That's embarrassing.

If you’ve a problem with my posts then report them. And as for “sly digs” your post is the height of irony.
Now most people here would like to continue reading about the documentary, not what you or anyone else think about my posting style.

And the only ones embarrassing themselves are the ones who are at pains to defend obvious paedo behaviour.

Boggles

tigger123 wrote: »

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

What a truly original question, I haven't seen it being posed at all on this thread.



I'm going to suggest the answer is no though, I just have a hunch.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

If you’ve a problem with my posts then report them. And as for “sly digs” your post is the height of irony.
Now most people here would like to continue reading about the documentary, not what you or anyone else think about my posting style.

Your posting style? I was talking about the content of your posts.

As for your attempt to control what happens next in the thread :rolleyes:
Like I said, ignore and deflect.

tigger123

Boggles wrote: »

What a truly original question, I haven't seen it being posed at all on this thread.



I'm going to suggest the answer is no though, I just have a hunch.

Point I'm making is that people are quick to brush off the behavior, but wouldn't dream of letting someone they care about be in the same situation.

No wonder the question comes up again and again.

Boggles

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Retro, as much as I don't want to engage you again, you've embarrassed yourself today. All you've done is make sly digs at people while sticking your fingers in your ears when someone asks you a question that you find tough. A completely closed mind when it comes to anything other than your own opinion. Ignore and deflect. That's embarrassing.

The constant goading in an attempt to get reactions with the sole goal of getting people sanctioned is quite tiresome and fairly sneaky but hardly original.

I have never reported a post or put someone on ignore, but I find if you stop feeding them they will usually go away.

ToBeFrank123

retro:electro wrote: »

I mean if you have to try and force a pathetic point so badly that you resort to comparing a middle aged man sharing a bed with little boys to a legal guardian sharing a bed with her children, it’s time to just turn off the computer.
Embarrassing stuff.

Sound.

So if MJ flew to Africa, bought/adopted a number of orphans, got the legal paperwork sorted, flew back to the US, was their recognized legal guardian, and routinely slept in the same bed as them. What would you say then? It was ok? Or still creepy? Or would you imply in retrospect that something was very wrong?

SusieBlue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sound.

So if MJ flew to Africa, bought/adopted a number of orphans, got the legal paperwork sorted, flew back to the US, was their recognized legal guardian, and routinely slept in the same bed as them. What would you say then? It was ok? Or still creepy? Or would you imply in retrospect that something was very wrong?

I don't know why you can't seem to grasp that they aren't the same thing.

tigger123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sound.

So if MJ flew to Africa, bought/adopted a number of orphans, got the legal paperwork sorted, flew back to the US, was their recognized legal guardian, and routinely slept in the same bed as them. What would you say then? It was ok? Or still creepy? Or would you imply in retrospect that something was very wrong?

I think social services would be all over that.

Boggles

tigger123 wrote: »

Point I'm making is that people are quick to brush off the behavior, but wouldn't dream of letting someone they care about be in the same situation.

I don't think anyone (who is not taking the piss) is brushing off the behavior, it is down right creepy behavior compared to not just social norms today, but norms back then.

It's people who think that behavior automatically equates to child rape are the ones brushing off any other possible reasoning.

Jackson has explained it himself as have many people who have grown up with him and spent considerable amounts of time with him.

Again that's brushed off.

ToBeFrank123

tigger123 wrote: »

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

Of course I wouldn't. Nothing about MJ was normal, nor it seems about the kids parents who let him share the bed.

Does it mean he raped them? Again, you'd need a bit more proof.

re the parents, at least one or two saw an opportunity and sadly used their kids as bait to get money out of Jackson either through financial help or suing him. Not all of them were like this but it seems clear some were.

tigger123

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think anyone (who is not taking the piss) is brushing off the behavior, it is down right creepy behavior compared to not just social norms today, but norms back then.

It's people who think that behavior automatically equates to child rape are the ones brushing off any other possible reasoning.

Jackson has explained it himself as have many people who have grown up with him and spent considerable amounts of time with him.

Again that's brushed off.

The behavior isn't in isolation though. It's set against a context of allegations of sexual abuse that are being leveled against Michael Jackson.

I watched Part I last night and found it pretty disturbing tbh.

tigger123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't. Nothing about MJ was normal, nor it seems about the kids parents who let him share the bed.

Does it mean he raped them? Again, you'd need a bit more proof.

re the parents, at least one or two saw an opportunity and sadly used their kids as bait to get money out of Jackson either through financial help or suing him. Not all of them were like this but it seems clear some were.

Nope. just because he shared a bed with them doesn't mean he raped them. It raises serious questions though as to what his motivations were for having children in his bed.

And then two of the children (in the doc last night) have said he molested them, and another 2 (or 3?) in the 90s made similar allegations against him.

Boggles

tigger123 wrote: »

I watched Part I last night and found it pretty disturbing tbh.

Of course you would why wouldn't you, you are human and maybe a parent or have children in your life.

It is designed to disturb you, shock you and make you feel a very certain way.

But that doesn't mean there is one iota of truth in it. This is not a new story, there is no new evidence there is absolutely no balance. Unashamedly so.

You do realize that, right?

tigger123

Boggles wrote: »

Of course you would why wouldn't you, you are human and maybe a parent or have children in your life.

It is designed to disturb you, shock you and make you feel a very certain way.

But that doesn't mean there is one iota of truth in it. This is not a new story, there is no new evidence there is absolutely no balance. Unashamedly so.

You do realize that, right?

That really is the crux of it. It's about whether you believe those that are making the allegations or not.

Safechuck and Wade Robson seem credible to me, and I believe their stories.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LolaJJ wrote: »

I've only seen the first part of this doc, last night, along with the rest of the world I'm sure.

Pretty indifferent to Jackson going in, always felt there is no smoke without fire and expected to be fully convinced he was guilty going in. Coming out of it, I was less convinced than I presumed I'd be - the hype surrounding this doc has been slightly insane.

I am disappointed they didn't include stories from now adult children who claim he didn't abuse them. I feel it lacked balance on that front but I understand the producers are telling the abuse story/allegations.

I don't feel confident assuming he is guilty, I'd like to know more about how well Safechuck and Robson became acquainted prior to filming and if there was an opportunity for them to compare notes, so to speak.

My one takeaway from it was how insanely naive and strange both mothers were. I appreciate he was a big-star but surely as mothers, they should have had some kind of instinct or feeling that this was inappropriate behavior. Part of me wondered if they turned a blind eye.

The thing is, whilst those accounts would be interesting to hear, they wouldn’t disprove anything.

I’d imagine even convicted child-abusers had contact with children they never did anything to. How child sexual abusers operate is identifying children whose parents aren’t vigilant enough. But those abusers probably were around plenty of children who ultimately couldn’t be fully separated from their parents.

Boggles

tigger123 wrote: »

Safechuck and Wade Robson seem credible to me, and I believe their stories.

Good for you.

But like I said they will more than likely have to retell those stories under oath maybe more than once.

Where soft lighting, unlimited takes and a sad backing track will be replaced with cross examination and scrutiny.

The 2 boys all ready owe the Jackson estate roughly 150k apparently, this could get very expensive indeed.

8-10

tigger123 wrote: »

and another 2 (or 3?) in the 90s made similar allegations against him.

Who was this?

tigger123

8-10 wrote: »

Who was this?

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

ceadaoin.

This documentary was about these two guys telling their story. And to raise awareness of grooming and how abusers do this. The filmaker has been open about that. Why should it have to include people who say they weren't abused? Documentaries tend to focus on one subject from one perspective. It's normal

tigger123

8-10 wrote: »

Who was this?

This is a better link actually:

https://www.vulture.com/article/michael-jackson-abuse-allegations-timeline.html

Theboinkmaster

SoundsRight wrote: »

Watched pt.1 last night. Very uncomfortable viewing at times. I grew up after his peak years, so not as emotionally invested in him as others. He was famous in a way you can't get anymore, so I understand why people refuse to believe despite it being so blatantly obvious.

I've no doubt in my kind he was a predator and a pedophile. There's no other reasonable explanation for his behaviour.

So you arrived at that opinion after watching a 2 hour one sided documentary.

No doubt in your mind bar lack of a single piece of evidence, being acquitted of all charges and all accusers lacking credibility and desperately looking for $$$ money.

You have no doubt, really? :eek:

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The thing is, whilst those accounts would be interesting to hear, they wouldn’t disprove anything.

I’d imagine even convicted child-abusers had contact with children they never did anything to. How child sexual abusers operate is identifying children whose parents aren’t vigilant enough. But those abusers probably were around plenty of children who ultimately couldn’t be fully separated from their parents.

This. How many teacher priests over the decades who have been convicted of crimes like this were around loads of children where nothing happened?

A predator is someone who can identify the weakest ones.

The lion doesn't need to be quicker than the fastest zebra. The lion catches the slowest zebra.

ToBeFrank123

SusieBlue wrote: »

Talk about shifting the goalposts.

You said that him sharing a bed with preteen boys was akin to an adoptive mother sharing a bed with her children.
They are in no way similar and comparing them is extremely disingenuous.

By comparing it to a mother/children scenario you ARE condoning it, because you are implying its normal and acceptable behaviour and it isn't.
You are justifying it by saying the two are on the same wavelength.
They aren't and its actually very offensive to suggest otherwise.

I refuse to acknowledge the rest of your post as that wasn't the point I was arguing and had nothing to do with your original post.

Susie, I think I can narrow the arguments on both sides down to this:

Argument 1 : Jackson was an insanely childish, naïve guy who had no childhood and no childhood friends and therefore craved the company of children. Some parents copped on to this and instead of doing everything in their power to stop him sharing a bed with their kids saw an opportunity. Both sides exploited each other. From what I can gather, Jackson loved children, I don't think anyone doubts that, and was eager to have some of his own. Whether he loved them innocently or in a more sinister way is the question.

Argument 2 : He was a rampant abuser who used his influence and power to sleep with children with significant grooming involved. Vulnerable parents from a poor or middle class background felt powerless to intervene and their silence was bought with money and gifts.

People are by and large in one of these two camps.

Some people rely on hard evidence and at least a court case before being convinced.

A couple of life's failures who fell on financial difficulty and after the statute of limitations expired suddenly pop up to make accusations. Don't be surprised if some people have doubts.

All we need is solid inarguable proof, not speculation or stuff like "he shared a bed with children therefore he must have raped them" which is essentially what some people on here have been saying.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

https://mobile.twitter.com/joerogan/status/1103540852113080321?s=08

Theboinkmaster

tigger123 wrote: »

Safechuck and Wade Robson seem credible to me, and I believe their stories.

Why?! They're both proven liars with a lot of money involved.

tigger123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Susie, I think I can narrow the arguments on both sides down to this:

Argument 1 : Jackson was an insanely childish, naïve guy who had no childhood and no childhood friends and therefore craved the company of children. Some parents copped on to this and instead of doing everything in their power to stop him sharing a bed with their kids saw an opportunity. Both sides exploited each other. From what I can gather, Jackson loved children, I don't think anyone doubts that, and was eager to have some of his own. Whether he loved them innocently or in a more sinister way is the question.

Argument 2 : He was a rampant abuser who used his influence and power to sleep with children with significant grooming involved. Vulnerable parents from a poor or middle class background felt powerless to intervene and their silence was bought with money and gifts.

People are by and large in one of these two camps.

Some people rely on hard evidence and at least a court case before being convinced.

A couple of life's failures who fell on financial difficulty and after the statute of limitations expired suddenly pop up to make accusations. Don't be surprised if some people have doubts.

All we need is solid inarguable proof, not speculation or stuff like "he shared a bed with children therefore he must have raped them" which is essentially what some people on here have been saying.

What would constitute proof to you?

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This documentary was about these two guys telling their story. And to raise awareness of grooming and how abusers do this. The filmaker has been open about that. Why should it have to include people who say they weren't abused? Documentaries tend to focus on one subject from one perspective. It's normal

I saw the director ****ting on about how this is about those 2 boys and it's above abuse, not really about Michael Jackson.

Then why is it called Leaving Neverland?!

ToBeFrank123

I bet I could make anyone on this thread look and sound like a serial killer if I put together a one sided documentary. Connect them to locations of various crimes. And leave it long enough after the crimes, they will struggle to have a credible alibi. Bring in a couple of actors or people with an ax to grind and before you know it, everyone is convinced.

Its easy to make allegations. Its another to come up with solid proof.

Kimbot

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Your posting style? I was talking about the content of your posts.

As for your attempt to control what happens next in the thread :rolleyes:
Like I said, ignore and deflect.

MOD Deebles, dont post in this thread again!!

ceadaoin.

I understand why people might be able to write off Robson but can anyone explain why Safechuck isn't credible? He was a child when he testified for Michael at the first trial. He refused to do it in 2005. He kept his head down and hasnt sought to benefit from his association with Jackson over the years.

His story is harrowing and he is clearly deeply affected. If it was anyone else he was accusing, he wouldn't be called a liar. Some people just can't face the fact that Jackson was an abuser. Nothing will make them believe it, even if video evidence came up they would probably say it was fake etc etc.

ToBeFrank123

tigger123 wrote: »

What would constitute proof to you?

Proof admissible in court for a start and which can be questioned by the defence.

Or even witnesses subject to proper cross examination which clearly didn't happen in this documentary.

If I made allegations against you, would you like to have a right of reply?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This documentary was about these two guys telling their story. And to raise awareness of grooming and how abusers do this. The filmaker has been open about that. Why should it have to include people who say they weren't abused? Documentaries tend to focus on one subject from one perspective. It's normal

The Documentaries sole selling point is Michael Jackson.

There would be no thread otherwise or probably documentary, so it's fair disingenuous of the director to try shovel that absolute nonsense, it's completely insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I understand why people might be able to write off Robson but can anyone explain why Safechuck isn't credible? He was a child when he testified for Michael at the first trial. He refused to do it in 2005. He kept his head down and hasnt sought to benefit from his association with Jackson over the years.

There was no first trial, was there? He signed a witness statement I think for the potential civil suit.

Why did he refuse to do it in 2005, what was his reasons?

is_that_so

He seems to be considering more programmes.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

The Documentaries sole selling point is Michael Jackson.

There would be no thread otherwise or probably documentary, so it's fair disingenuous of the director to try shovel that absolute nonsense, it's completely insulting to everyone's intelligence.

Why do you think Safechucks account is "nonsense"? Break it down for me

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

There was no first trial, was there? He signed a witness statement I think for the potential civil suit.

Why did he refuse to do it in 2005, what was his reasons?

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

Hang on a second, by his own sworn deposition a few years ago he stated he didn't realize he had been molested or that it was "wrong" until at least 2010, this changed numerous times to later dates for "other" reasons.

So now he is saying he didn't defend him in 2005 because he was molested.

That's very interesting, thank you.

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Because Michael abused him and he didn't want to defend him? That's when he first told his mother about it. So then he waited another 15 years to make a profit from it why? Playing the long game? Or just a traumatised person who couldn't face up to it?

Or maybe convinced by Robson into joining him and taking advantage of the #metoo movement and make some money?

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The thing is, whilst those accounts would be interesting to hear, they wouldn’t disprove anything.

While they wouldn't disprove anything they would at least help establish the credibility and character of the accused as well as the credibility of the accuser, all vital in a court of law.

This is why a courtroom is the only proper place to decide guilt or innocence. The importance of a judge is he/she does not allow witnesses to make accusations or false statements without being called to account or cross examined. Its critical in proving guilt or innocence.

None of this happened in this documentary which is, its clear a good old fashioned character hatchet job with no right to reply. No wonder the judge threw out the case of one of them before trial.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

While they wouldn't disprove anything they would at least help establish the credibility and character of the accused as well as the credibility of the accuser, all vital in a court of law.

This is why a courtroom is the only proper place to decide guilt or innocence. The importance of a judge is he/she does not allow witnesses to make accusations or false statements without being called to account or cross examined. Its critical in proving guilt or innocence.

None of this happened in this documentary which is, its clear a good old fashioned character hatchet job with no right to reply. No wonder the judge threw out the case of one of them before trial.

The case was "thrown out" because the statute of limitations had passed. It was nothing to do with the credibility of the accusations

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

correction wrote: »

I don't even think public opinion has swayed enough against him for banning his music to even be a conversation tbh.

Don't think enough people even care about the documentary. You've definitely got loud people who do but I think the majority have grown up with these questions hanging over him already so unless some real new unarguable evidence is presented, which it's fair to say this documentary failed to do, his legacy will remain mostly unchanged.

The official ratings weren’t that high in the US, I think. Not compared to the Bashir documentary of the early ‘00s. Though was that shown on network television as opposed to cable? I think a lot of people are fed up of the topic and have made up their minds on him already either way. I actually wouldn’t have watched or recorded last night’s installment myself left to my own devices. Hubs wanted to watch it.

joe40

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

tigger123 wrote: »

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

Of course I wouldn't. Nothing about MJ was normal, nor it seems about the kids parents who let him share the bed.

Does it mean he raped them? Again, you'd need a bit more proof.

re the parents, at least one or two saw an opportunity and sadly used their kids as bait to get money out of Jackson either through financial help or suing him. Not all of them were like this but it seems clear some were.

Proof is not possible at this stage, but you're the one who tried to muddy the waters by comparing his behaviour to parents sharing a bed with their kids.
(As a parent of a 13 year old that would be creepy enough)
I don't know why you would try to normalise his behaviour in that way.

In terms of proof that would result in a conviction in court, that level of evidence does not exist nor will it at this stage, and the witnesses do have credibility issues. I accept all that.
For me personally though, even just re assessing what was already known, if as a adult and father is enough for me to reach the conclusion that Michael was not just a harmless "man child" but posed a potential danger.
We will never have proof if rape actually took place but people will form opinions and for me his legacy is severely damaged.
Even without the current doc, his behaviour when reexamined in the light of what is now known about child abuse and grooming is hard to accept.

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The case was "thrown out" because the statute of limitations had passed. It was nothing to do with the credibility of the accusations

I made the point about the statute of limitations before. Its there to ensure cases can be tried while evidence is fresh, memories are fresh, and witnesses are still alive. The longer time passes the more difficult it becomes to have accurate evidence and witness accounts. Memories for one fade. One of the points about it is its there to protect people from false or made up allegations which a judge and jury can't accurately decide if they are true.

ToBeFrank123

joe40 wrote: »

Proof is not possible at this stage, but you're the one who tried to muddy the waters by comparing his behaviour to parents sharing a bed with their kids.
(As a parent of a 13 year old that would be creepy enough)
I don't know why you would try to normalise his behaviour in that way.

In terms of proof that would result in a conviction in court, that level of evidence does not exist nor will it at this stage, and the witnesses do have credibility issues. I accept all that.
For me personally though, even just re assessing what was already known, if as a adult and father is enough for me to reach the conclusion that Michael was not just a harmless "man child" but posed a potential danger.
We will never have proof if rape actually took place but people will form opinions and for me his legacy is severely damaged.
Even without the current doc, his behaviour when reexamined in the light of what is now known about child abuse and grooming is hard to accept.

I said its odd so stop putting words in my mouth. But odd behavior is proof of nothing, else we'd have to lock up every odd ball here and elsewhere purely for the crime of being odd.

Its not a criminal offence to be odd or eccentric. In fact some of the nicest most harmless people are odd and eccentric. And some of the nastiest psychopaths present themselves as upstanding pillars of society as we well know in this country. In fact it seems to be their MO to present themselves as normal.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on a second, by his own sworn deposition a few years ago he stated he didn't realize he had been molested or that it was "wrong" until at least 2010, this changed numerous times to later dates for "other" reasons.

So now he is saying he didn't defend him in 2005 because he was molested.

That's very interesting, thank you.

He says numerous times in this documentary that while he told his mother that Jackson "wasn't a good person" in 2005 and he wouldn't defend him, that was the extent of it. He was still in denial about the abuse and didn't delve into it further. It's fairly common behaviour among abuse victims.

The whole point of the movie is about how victims of grooming don't feel like they were abused. This is a thing. It's not as simple as saying "he didn't realise raping a child was wrong, yeah right" and concluding that he must be lying because of that. He obviously knew it was wrong on an objective level, but he had disassociated himself from the situation. They both say that it's only when they think of it happening to their own children that they can feel anger or disgust about it, even now. For liars they know an awful about how abuse victims might feel and act.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I made the point about the statute of limitations before. Its there to ensure cases can be tried while evidence is fresh, memories are fresh, and witnesses are still alive. The longer time passes the more difficult it becomes to have accurate evidence and witness accounts. Memories for one fade. One of the points about it is its there to protect people from false or made up allegations which a judge and jury can't accurately decide if they are true.

Yeah but you tried to insinuate that the judge "threw out" the case because the claims were made up. That didn't happen

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The whole point of the movie is about how victims of grooming don't feel like they were abused.

No the whole point of the movie is to use Michael Jackson's name to make money and gain attention.

joe40

A grown man sharing his bed with 13 year old boys is not simply "odd"

It is not the actions of some harmless eccentric. We will never know if abuse took place, but it is wrong to dismiss his behaviour as "odd"

ToBeFrank123

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yeah but you tried to insinuate that the judge "threw out" the case because the claims were made up. That didn't happen

I will have to go back and find the post for where someone said it was thrown out. It was possibly a comment made by someone along the lines of the judge threw it out because he was an obvious liar. I will look later if that's ok?