Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She's clearly struggling with her timelines and memory if she made that assertion. A half competent lawyer would pull her up on this instantly and her credibility as a witness in a court case would immediately be shot to pieces.

You can never underestimate the value of cross examination in uncovering provable lies. Lawyers are the world leading experts at cross examination and interrogation. If someone is lying they will uncover it in no time.

You wouldn't even need a lawyer. Any half decent journalist / documentarian who isn't a tabloid hack trying to make a name for himself should have the common professional decency to fact check his own work. Even if he is going to make it unashamedly one sided.

Reed (director) has said on the record numerous times he believes every facet of their story, he knows this because he vehemently fact checked every part of it.

He is no better than a con man.

He looked like he was about to shít himself when Piers Morgan started asking him a couple of simple questions, because up until that point he was able to do his media tour completely unchallenged.

Morgan is a cretin, but he is also a tabloid hack who knows another when he sees it.

Boggles

Maddox Ripe Pail wrote: »

Yup, weirdly hostile AND passive aggressive.

Always find it strange when people resort to the above when they are convinced of their position. All they need to do is lay out their position - that should be sufficient. When they are so sure of their position and can support it robustly, it doesn't make sense that they would resort to... being an arsehole really.

I'd appreciate if you stop replying to me please.

Thanks.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As for the insurance company, who knows their motive. They possibly cut a deal - bring it to court and risk paying out 50 million, or keep it out of court and pay only 20 million. It should have been brought to court though. I think it set a precedent for others that there was easy money to be made from Jackson and his estate. People saw dollar signs. And if you make your accusation believable enough, or wait until memories fade and witnesses in particular struggle to remember, the chances of success increase. Unless you wait too long and the statute of limitations pass.

Jackson was inline to lose 100+ million if he didn't finish the second leg of the tour, not to mention multiple potential law suits for not fulfilling his contractual obligations. He stated he wanted to fight it, but was over ruled.

In 2003-2005 he chose to go down the criminal route, because at the time he had no contractual obligations.

As we saw from that when it was tested in the court, the whole family that made the allegations should have been leaving in shackles.

marklazarcovic

https://youtu.be/oo4u_P_R0p4

There is no way this is a forced statement, completely damming, I'd say she got one of those cheques herself to recant it.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson was inline to lose 100+ million if he didn't finish the second leg of the tour, not to mention multiple potential law suits for not fulfilling his contractual obligations. He stated he wanted to fight it, but was over ruled.

In 2003-2005 he chose to go down the criminal route, because at the time he had no contractual obligations.

As we saw from that when it was tested in the court, the whole family that made the allegations should have been leaving in shackles.

The insurance company would probably have to cover this 100 million if they were insuring him and the tour. So 20 million was better for them to part with. It was a foolish move in hindsight and it flagged that Jackson could be sued without even going to court. Make the accusations believable enough and the insurance company would pay up.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The insurance company would probably have to cover this 100 million if they were insuring him and the tour. So 20 million was better for them to part with. It was a foolish move in hindsight and it flagged that Jackson could be sued without even going to court. Make the accusations believable enough and the insurance company would pay up.

Can you imagine the carnage of putting Evan Chandler on the stand, I guy that drugged his own son and subsequently tried to murder him with a dumbbell and a can of mace. He was a complete psychopath.

"Is it true Mr. Chandler you were seeking 20 million off Michael Jackson to make Men in Tights II?". :pac::pac::pac:

It would have made the 2005 trial look credible.

KikiLaRue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most if not all of these points have been addressed throughout the thread and it would be only recycling old posts to go over them again.

However, unfortunately it does look like most if not all Jackson's accusers are liars engaged in some form of sophisticated shakedown. They tried the courts and couldn't get anywhere because judges and juries threw their cases out and on balance rightly so as their evidence lack credibility and consistency.
There's been allegations the maid was caught stealing, selling her story and so on.
its not ok for a man in his 30s to sleep in the same room as kids. Does it point to anything more sinister , for that we have the word of a couple of guys of dubious credibility against the word of a dead man who also may or not have been of dubious character. Unfortunately the entire thing is based around dubious characters and their word, which is why its so damn hard to make a definitive statement like Jackson was wholly innocent or in fact guilty.

As for the insurance company, who knows their motive. They possibly cut a deal - bring it to court and risk paying out 50 million, or keep it out of court and pay only 20 million. It should have been brought to court though. I think it set a precedent for others that there was easy money to be made from Jackson and his estate. People saw dollar signs. And if you make your accusation believable enough, or wait until memories fade and witnesses in particular struggle to remember, the chances of success increase. Unless you wait too long and the statute of limitations pass.

They haven’t been addressed to an adequately convincing degree for me.

I don’t need anyone to convince me that an adult man sleeping in bed with children is wrong. It just is. It goes against ever fibre of my being. It goes against logic to suggest it was innocent.

You got the part about the insurance company right though. They settled for $20m rather than risk paying $50m... which means they obviously found Chandler to be credible.

paleoperson

There's no such person named "Micky Jackson" you could be talking about here.

If you're trying to "Irishize" the name that's a massive failure because Micky, Mick, Mike, Michael, Micheail (Irish) and maybe Mikey are all held as completely different names considering there are so many people with a "Michael" type of name. There's about five people with the base name of "Michael Murphy" in the locality here, two of them live almost next door. You tell them apart by how you say their first name. You'd get very queer looks if you tried to name them different.

hetuzozaho

Apologies if posted already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWjKDih1G8

Its a discussion with the two guys and the director and an audience of abuse survivors.

The difficulty people have in coming forward and opening up about the abuse is awful. Living for years with it must be so difficult. Sometimes with a sense of guilt. Shocking.

Boggles

paleoperson wrote: »

There's no such person named "Micky Jackson" you could be talking about here.

If you're trying to "Irishize" the name that's a massive failure because Micky, Mick, Mike, Michael, Micheail (Irish) and maybe Mikey are all held as completely different names considering there are so many people with a "Michael" type of name. There's about five people with the base name of "Michael Murphy" in the locality here, two of them live almost next door. You tell them apart by how you say their first name. You'd get very queer looks if you tried to name them different.

Well, that clears that up.

tylercheribini

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Apologies if posted already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWjKDih1G8

Its a discussion with the two guys and the director and an audience of abuse survivors.

The difficulty people have in coming forward and opening up about the abuse is awful. Living for years with it must be so difficult. Sometimes with a sense of guilt. Shocking.

And people still think its all an elaborately plotted conspiracy against their deity.

Beechwoodspark

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Savile was 84 at death,MJ 50 ,lot of years between them to accumulate victims. Just pointing this out, can't compare like for like,older the abuser the more he abused.

I personally believe he groomed many many victims from around 1978 up until his death from a drug overdose in 2009

I believe this from having read two biographies of him and many articles.

For anyone saying post evidence etc. No. I have a full time job and busy enough as it is. and cannot be your personal researchers.

Instead I ask you to take the time to do your own research. Plenty of reputable stuff online and of course by all means use your own judgement. Come to your own conclusions.

I am delighted that he has been exposed and hopefully his music will never be played publicly again. The next step is that the Jackson family are ruined due to enabling his child abuse for decades.

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I believe this from having read two biographies.

I know you are extremely busy and can't do any research, but could you name the 2 books at least please?

smartyfarts

he's definitely a big nonce. there's no two ways about it. he was a predator and used his status and power to wield abuse over loads of kids.

his music is still catchy, I love that "Do you remember the time" video & song with eddie murphy and imam.

ToBeFrank123

KikiLaRue wrote: »

You got the part about the insurance company right though. They settled for $20m rather than risk paying $50m... which means they obviously found Chandler to be credible.

Boggles has addressed this better than me. If the tour was cancelled, they'd be at risk for 100 million. They decided to just pay the 20 million. That way they saved themselves 80 million. It was wrong of them to do that, but then again that's the way insurance companies work. They try to make a profit surprisingly enough!

paleoperson

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I personally believe he groomed many many victims from around 1978 up until his death from a drug overdose in 2009

I believe this from having read two biographies of him and many articles.

For anyone saying post evidence etc. No. I have a full time job and busy enough as it is. and cannot be your personal researchers.

Instead I ask you to take the time to do your own research. Plenty of reputable stuff online and of course by all means use your own judgement. Come to your own conclusions.

I am delighted that he has been exposed and hopefully his music will never be played publicly again. The next step is that the Jackson family are ruined due to enabling his child abuse for decades.

Well that escalated quickly. I'm assuming you wrote the early part of the post with the airs of being fair and respectful through gritted teeth, then all of a sudden you let your true feelings out.

This is something I've noticed about these "pedophile hunters" types. It's almost like their need for revenge is first, and it's about how bloodthirsty they are, all in the name of "protecting the children". First being as violent as possible against the perpetrators. But since Jackson is dead the bloodlust turns to having none of his music played anymore and on the family for "enabling" it. These people are never happy and imo their opinions on whether it occurred or not are not worth taking seriously because they're too emotional and over the top.

hetuzozaho

tylercheribini wrote: »

And people still think its all an elaborately plotted conspiracy against their deity.

Well it may be. Would be great news.

Beechwoodspark

paleoperson wrote: »

Well that escalated quickly. I'm assuming you wrote the early part of the post with the airs of being fair and respectful through gritted teeth, then all of a sudden you let your true feelings out.

This is something I've noticed about these "pedophile hunters" types. It's almost like their need for revenge is first, and it's about how bloodthirsty they are, all in the name of "protecting the children". First being as violent as possible against the perpetrators. But since Jackson is dead the bloodlust turns to having none of his music played anymore and on the family for "enabling" it. These people are never happy and imo their opinions on whether it occurred or not are not worth taking seriously because they're too emotional and over the top.

I respectfully ask you to go away do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

hetuzozaho

smartyfarts wrote: »

his music is still catchy, I love that "Do you remember the time" video & song with eddie murphy and imam.

So good in my opinion. I was listening to a lot of it over the weekend, and watching the videos on YouTube, brings back a lot of great memories.

I hadn't listened in years, was a big fan as a kid, still have the Bad record from then. Good Times!

Did he work with a lot writers and musicians, always find it strange when a musician doesn't play instruments(from what I see on wiki album info) but is credited for all the writing.

ToBeFrank123

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I respectfully ask you to go away do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

That's actually good advice to everyone and not to take the documentary on face value. They should investigate a bit further and then decide.

Beechwoodspark

hetuzozaho wrote: »

So good in my opinion. I was listening to a lot of it over the weekend, and watching the videos on YouTube, brings back a lot of great memories.

I hadn't listened in years, was a big fan as a kid, still have the Bad record from then. Good Times!

Did he work with a lot writers and musicians, always find it strange when a musician doesn't play instruments(from what I see on wiki album info) but is credited for all the writing.

To me the real genius in MJs story is the one and only Quincy Jones

A legendary musician and producer.

If you are unfamiliar his wiki will give you an idea of his career.

Boggles

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I respectfully ask you to go away do your own research and reach your own conclusions.

Why don't you tell him the name of the 2 books you read so he can do that?

hetuzozaho

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To me the real genius in MJs story is the one and only Quincy Jones

A legendary musician and producer.

If you are unfamiliar his wiki will give you an idea of his career.

Yeah I know Qunicy, and seen him mentioned. I'd be a big Sinatra fan as a kid too. Quincy worked with him too.

So Jackson was more of a sinatra/Beyonce than a dylan/Springsteen say.

Beechwoodspark

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yeah I know Qunicy, and seen him mentioned. I'd be a big Sinatra fan as a kid too. Quincy worked with him too.

So Jackson was more of a sinatra/Beyonce than a dylan/Springsteen say.

MJs record company paid top dollar for whoever the latest cool producer to get was but still,

The quality of Jackson’s output declined rapidly after QJ stopped working with him.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's actually good advice to everyone and not to take the documentary on face value. They should investigate a bit further and then decide.

I think most people are to be fair. Before the documentary there was already a compelling case that he was guilty, based on past accusations and patterns of behaviour. Ultimately we all form our own views based in the information available.

innuendo141

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

MJs record company paid top dollar for whoever the latest cool producer to get was but still,

The quality of Jackson’s output declined rapidly after QJ stopped working with him.

Quincy is actually performing Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad in London this summer with an orchestra, which I'd imagine will be pretty spectacular.

tylercheribini

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-jackson-music-bans-show-double-standards-of-cultural-elitists-1.3820729

Interesting article.

hetuzozaho

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

MJs record company paid top dollar for whoever the latest cool producer to get was but still,

The quality of Jackson’s output declined rapidly after QJ stopped working with him.

Yeah I see Teddy Riley plays a big role after quincy.

A lot of pop acts over the years use that setup. Always working with a multi instrumentalist, who has worked with so many artists you know. It's gas. Some times it's like there was 5 guys who wrote all the 90s hits you know sold and packaged with different front men/women/bands.

hetuzozaho

innuendo141 wrote: »

Quincy is actually performing Off The Wall, Thriller and Bad in London this summer with an orchestra, which I'd imagine will be pretty spectacular.

Sounds cool.

Boggles

tylercheribini wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-jackson-music-bans-show-double-standards-of-cultural-elitists-1.3820729

Interesting article.

It isn't, nor is it new, to be fair.

The same arguments have been brought up to half a dozen times all ready on this thread and probably by every other publication for the past 2 years.

Mr.Wemmick

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To me the real genius in MJs story is the one and only Quincy Jones

A legendary musician and producer.

If you are unfamiliar his wiki will give you an idea of his career.

Q Jones is without question a genius and has had an amazing contribution & influence on music throughout the 60s/70s and 80s. MJ wouldn't have been the star he was without him.

Quincy Jone's documentary is well worth a watch (Netflix) and he has some interesting things to say about MJ. I think I read somewhere MJ tried to block him from receiving an award for Thriller as Jackson wanted it, but Quincy got it nonetheless, as was deserved.

I am a big fan of Mr. Jones. Incredible composer and musician.

is_that_so

tylercheribini wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-jackson-music-bans-show-double-standards-of-cultural-elitists-1.3820729

Interesting article.

Not that great IMO. Most of it he didn't have to write, just bundle together news-clips and he does lose the run of himself by the end. That said he does raise a serious point but one he never actually answers himself. It is one of those thin edge of wedge things where people end up not being able to separate the talent they had from other murkier parts of their lives.

innuendo141

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Q Jones is without question a genius and has had an amazing contribution & influence on music throughout the 60s/70s and 80s. MJ wouldn't have been the star he was without him.

Quincy Jone's documentary is well worth a watch (Netflix) and he has some interesting things to say about MJ. I think I read somewhere MJ tried to block him from receiving an award for Thriller as Jackson wanted it, but Quincy got it nonetheless, as was deserved.

I am a big fan of Mr. Jones. Incredible composer and musician.

Thank you for reminding me about that documentary. Will slot it in this week.

123balltv

Surprised the childlike, innocent Michael tried to block Quincy Jones :eek: now
that's a man who had a tragic childhood.

tylercheribini

Boggles wrote: »

tylercheribini wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-jackson-music-bans-show-double-standards-of-cultural-elitists-1.3820729

Interesting article.

It isn't, nor is it new, to be fair.

The same arguments have been brought up to half a dozen times all ready on this thread and probably by every other publication for the past 2 years.

Yes it is,I never said ideas contained therein hadnt been broched before, and it was for the benefit of those who are only fractionally as learned as yourself Dismissing thread contributions because one wasnt here from the start, eugh

kunst nugget

123balltv wrote: »

Surprised the childlike, innocent Michael tried to block Quincy Jones :eek: now
that's a man who had a tragic childhood.

Or that the childlike, innocent Michael, who after getting advice from Paul McCartney when they collaborated in the early eighties that you should always own the publishing rights of your back catalogue, stabbed Macca in the back and bought up the rights to the Beatles catalogue when they went up for auction shortly afterwards...

micks_address

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Q Jones is without question a genius and has had an amazing contribution & influence on music throughout the 60s/70s and 80s. MJ wouldn't have been the star he was without him.

Quincy Jone's documentary is well worth a watch (Netflix) and he has some interesting things to say about MJ. I think I read somewhere MJ tried to block him from receiving an award for Thriller as Jackson wanted it, but Quincy got it nonetheless, as was deserved.

I am a big fan of Mr. Jones. Incredible composer and musician.

his best production

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

is_that_so

kunst nugget wrote: »

Or that the childlike, innocent Michael, who after getting advice from Paul McCartney when they collaborated in the early eighties that you should always own the publishing rights of your back catalogue, stabbed Macca in the back and bought up the rights to the Beatles catalogue when they went up for auction shortly afterwards...

He bought a catalogue of 4000 songs, the Beatles songs were a small part of that. He ended up selling all of it anyway to Sony.

Boggles

kunst nugget wrote: »

Or that the childlike, innocent Michael, who after getting advice from Paul McCartney when they collaborated in the early eighties that you should always own the publishing rights of your back catalogue, stabbed Macca in the back and bought up the rights to the Beatles catalogue when they went up for auction shortly afterwards...

Well no, what Paul told him was to invest his money in other artists back catalogs, as Paul had did with Buddy Holly.

McCartney and Yuko Ono were given first refusals on the Beatles songs, they didn't want them.

Jackson didn't stab anyone in the back, he just followed his advice.

There was no rift according to Macca in interviews since.

But it is hilarious that we are going down these current rabbit holes of conjecture.

Boggles

tylercheribini wrote: »

Yes it is,I never said ideas contained therein hadnt been broched before, and it was for the benefit of those who are only fractionally as learned as yourself Dismissing thread contributions because one wasnt here from the start, eugh

I wasn't dismissing any contribution TBF.

It's a discussion forum, not a news dump.

The only opinion you offered was "interesting". I responded to that. You didn't expand on the article itself, so what level of discourse do you think you should enjoy or be entitled to when you couldn't be bothered yourself?

Theboinkmaster

Boggles wrote: »

Well no, what Paul told him was to invest his money in other artists back catalogs, as Paul had did with Buddy Holly.

McCartney and Yuko Ono were given first refusals on the Beatles songs, they didn't want them.

Jackson didn't stab anyone in the back, he just followed his advice.

There was no rift according to Macca in interviews since.

But it is hilarious that we are going down these current rabbit holes of conjecture.

McCartney was too cheap to pay the market value for his own songs.

tylercheribini

Boggles wrote: »

tylercheribini wrote: »

Yes it is,I never said ideas contained therein hadnt been broched before, and it was for the benefit of those who are only fractionally as learned as yourself Dismissing thread contributions because one wasnt here from the start, eugh

I wasn't dismissing any contribution TBF.

It's a discussion forum, not a news dump.

The only opinion you offered was "interesting". I responded to that. You didn't expand on the article itself, so what level of discourse do you think you should enjoy or be entitled to when you couldn't be bothered yourself?

Bahaha, Is that you Jeremy Paxman? Never realised boards was so high and mighty. Plenty of others linking relevant articles here too and two people found the link I posted engaging so not a completely wasted venture eh?

ToBeFrank123

is_that_so wrote: »

He bought a catalogue of 4000 songs, the Beatles songs were a small part of that. He ended up selling all of it anyway to Sony.

But that doesn't fit the narrative that Michael was evil as they come! The truth must be shaped to fit the "narrative".

McCartney I believe had no interest at the time in buying the catalogue. Sounds like MJ was a relatively good businessman in some ways but foolish in others.

valoren

Boggles wrote: »

Well no, what Paul told him was to invest his money in other artists back catalogs, as Paul had did with Buddy Holly.

McCartney and Yuko Ono were given first refusals on the Beatles songs, they didn't want them.

Jackson didn't stab anyone in the back, he just followed his advice.

There was no rift according to Macca in interviews since.

But it is hilarious that we are going down these current rabbit holes of conjecture.

Yes, it was nothing personal, just business.

I think the ire if you could call it that was how the publishing rights to the songs were being used e.g. Nike paid $500k in 1987 to use the song "Revolution" for a year long ad campaign.

The remaining members were peeved and as Harrison put it "If it's allowed to happen, every Beatles song ever recorded is going to be advertising women's underwear and sausages" If there was beef between Jackson and McCartney it was about how the songs were treated and not that Jackson had pulled a fast one on Paul.

They sued through their record company Apple but their suit failed as Yoko Ono, who was a shareholder of their record Company, had supported the use of the music in the ad.

If anything it doesn't show Jackson as a shrewd business man at all, he ended up spending money hand over fist and lacked any financial acumen. For me it shows that he was a guy who got whatever he wanted and was willing to pay to get what he wanted as well. He wanted the Beatles songs and he eventually got it. He also used his superstar status to effectively seal the deal by promising to hold a benefit concert for the billionaire catalog owner's charity of choice. That shows Jackson's "shrewdness" i.e. he knew he could exploit his star status to manipulate people to get what he wanted.

Call me Al

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But that doesn't fit the narrative that Michael was evil as they come! The truth must be shaped to fit the "narrative".

McCartney I believe had no interest at the time in buying the catalogue. Sounds like MJ was a relatively good businessman in some ways but foolish in others.

Shrewd business acumen.. hmmm... It does make a joke of the idea that he was a little boy who never grew up.

yourdeadwright

Call me Al wrote: »

Shrewd business acumen.. hmmm... It does make a joke of the idea that he was a little boy who never grew up.

You do realise he had many financial advisor's and didn't make all these call's of his own accord

hetuzozaho

yourdeadwright wrote: »

You do realise he had many financial advisor's and didn't make all these call's of his own accord

I think it's toBeFrank said he was a shrewd business man

ToBeFrank123

valoren wrote: »

That shows Jackson's "shrewdness" i.e. he knew he could exploit his star status to manipulate people to get what he wanted.

This is true, but it was a business deal, nothing more. Its difficult to draw parallels with other stuff.

Lots of stars and business men are experts at manipulation. Does it mean they are paedophiles? Not without solid evidence to back it up.

As I said earlier, the whole documentary is based on the statements from people of dubious character taken at face value. I would include Jackson in that dubious character assessment by the way even though he didn't make a statement

The only way to tell what from what and whose telling the truth is a court case with lawyers doing cross examination to see who is lying and whose account holds water.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Lots of stars and business men are experts at manipulation. Does it mean they are paedophiles?

Definitely not. But I think people are using more than just his manipulation techniques to arrive at the paedophile thing. You know this.

is_that_so

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But that doesn't fit the narrative that Michael was evil as they come! The truth must be shaped to fit the "narrative".

McCartney I believe had no interest at the time in buying the catalogue. Sounds like MJ was a relatively good businessman in some ways but foolish in others.

It depends where you read it. His irritation was more at having to pay for songs he wrote or co-wrote and having no control over how they were used. Himself and Lennon tried to buy them back in 1969 but didn't have enough money.