Micky Jackson in trouble again

innuendo141

is_that_so wrote: »

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.

Ono said that her and Maca couldn't come to an agreement. The plan WAS to split it. In the end, she was glad Jackson went for it.

Don't think she ever gave a comment about him letting LA Gear use Revolution for an ad though...

His cover of Come Together is class though.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

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

Unfortunately its difficult to tell how far the abuse went if it happened. The more I look at Safechuck and Robson and read about them the more holes I see in their story to the point I believe its an attempt at a financial shakedown that didn't get far in the courts. They had plenty of time to bring this all to court before. And I don't buy their excuses for not doing it, ie they didn't think sexual abuse was wrong until they were 30 years of age which is horse manure.

The lie from Safechuck that he refused to testify in 2005 because Jackson was a bad man is a huge lie. Then he compounds it by saying he wasn't sure he was abused until 2011. Robsons mother didn't know her son was abused until 2011 but danced a jig when Jackson died in 2009. Why would she be so happy to see the death of a guy that treated them like royalty? These are the kinds of giant holes in their stories that need further checking. I don't see how anyone can take these guys seriously.
I'm all for genuine victims of abuse coming forward, but when they come forward with more holes in their story than swiss cheese then there's something wrong. I'm expecting a response from some like yeh but abuse survivors take years to process stuff and so on. That is true but genuine victims don't change their stories every so often or tell lies when it suits.

Dontfadeaway

What about Macauley Culkin, are we really believing that he was hanging around with Michael all that time and in his bed but he was the lucky one and nothing happened? Culkin says nothing happened and said that all they did was play games and watch movies, which is what James and Wade said before they changed their story.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Unfortunately its difficult to tell how far the abuse went if it happened.

Of course it is without being in the bedroom with them. Which is pretty much the way these things go. And a lot of abuse victims face this hurdle.

The Oprah thing has an audience of 200 survivors, who seem to empathise and agree with the feelings of the two from the documentary. About not being able to tell etc. Etc.

Everyone will have different views etc. But it's a bit disingenuous to act like, oh lots of people are manipulative are they paedophiles too? People's views are not coming from nowhere. It's not that outlandish for someone to think he was a paedophile.

Just to add, I am not accusing him of being a paedophile so don't want a load wall of text telling me why he is not. And why those guys are liars etc. You don't know. I don't know. Personally I hope they are lieing and it comes out.

ToBeFrank123

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

What about Macauley Culkin, are we really believing that he was hanging around with Michael all that time and in his bed but he was the lucky one and nothing happened? Culkin says nothing happened and said that all they did was play games and watch movies, which is what James and Wade said before they changed their story.

Macauley Culkin I would treat as a credible witness. No evidence of him perjuring himself. No evidence of him being caught out telling lies in relation to Jackson. No evidence of him mounting a shakedown. If he wanted to come forward to claim something he could have. He doesn't need the money or the payoff.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Of course it is without being in the bedroom with them. Which is pretty much the way these things go. And a lot of abuse victims face this hurdle.

The Oprah thing has an audience of 200 survivors, who seem to empathise and agree with the feelings of the two from the documentary. About not being able to tell etc. Etc.

Everyone will have different views etc. But it's a bit disingenuous to act like, oh lots of people are manipulative are they paedophiles too? People's views are not coming from nowhere. It's not that outlandish for someone to think he was a paedophile.

Just to add, I am not accusing him of being a paedophile so don't want a load wall of text telling me why he is not. And why those guys are liars etc. You don't know. I don't know. Personally I hope they are lieing and it comes out.

"Nick" in the UK got through years of police investigations and so on before he was found to be a fraud. It shows that you can actually make things up and get away with it.

It is possible but eventually you get caught out with lies, particularly if it reaches a court trial where your credibility comes under intense scrutiny.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

"Nick" in the UK got through years of police investigations and so on before he was found to be a fraud. It shows that you can actually make things up and get away with it.

It is possible but eventually you get caught out with lies, particularly if it reaches a court trial where your credibility comes under intense scrutiny.

Think you've replied to the wrong person?

Conall Cernach

Maybe Culkin was abused too but sees that there is nothing to gain for him by coming out now and admitting it when he would be lambasted for not coming forward years ago. Or maybe Jackson didn't abuse him as he was high profile and if Macauley Culkin claimed to have been abused it would have been taken more seriously. Either way just because Macauley Culkin claims not to have been abused does not mean that other boys were not abused.

Flippyfloppy

Conall Cernach wrote: »

Maybe Culkin was abused too but sees that there is nothing to gain for him by coming out now and admitting it when he would be lambasted for not coming forward years ago. Or maybe Jackson didn't abuse him as he was high profile and if Macauley Culkin claimed to have been abused it would have been taken more seriously. Either way just because Macauley Culkin claims not to have been abused does not mean that other boys were not abused.

Culkin has said he wasn’t abused but two separate parties both claimed they witnessed him being abused while he played video games. Those parties had nothing to gain by those accusations.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

tylercheribini wrote: »

The whole "they are just out for the money" argument holds no water, I can think of easier ways of earning a living than participating in a gruelling four hour documentary publicly detailing that I sucked off a man etc..

And having millions upon millions of people hate you who will try to discredit you any way they can. Who would willingly sign up for that stress? I’ve heard people say that the two accusers’ careers are in the toilet. But I can’t find anything about Safechuck in that regard. I think he isn’t in the entertainment industry any more and just lives a low-key life. Nobody has lived a perfect life. I bet if any of us accused Jackson of something, somebody would find something to try and discredit us with.

Hrududu

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Robsons mother didn't know her son was abused until 2011 but danced a jig when Jackson died in 2009

That was Safechucks mother.

Safechuck asked her not to testify in 2005 as Jackson was "a bad man" she didn't ask for details but got the drift and so didn't testify. Then in 2009 when he died she said she danced the jig.

Boggles

Hrududu wrote: »

That was Safechucks mother.

Safechuck asked her not to testify in 2005 as Jackson was "a bad man" she didn't ask for details but got the drift and so didn't testify. Then in 2009 when he died she said she danced the jig.

Couldn't have happened, explained multiple times on this thread all ready.

innuendo141

Hrududu wrote: »

That was Safechucks mother.

Safechuck asked her not to testify in 2005 as Jackson was "a bad man" she didn't ask for details but got the drift and so didn't testify. Then in 2009 when he died she said she danced the jig.

His first story said that he did not realise what had taken place was abuse until he saw Wade Robson on TV in 2013 talking about his abuse. This is according to his lawsuit.

Flippyfloppy

It’s uncanny that the Jackson camp claim that the accusers are in it for the money. If anyone knows anything about being ‘in it for the money’ the jacksons do. MJs money is their bread and butter.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Couldn't have happened, explained multiple times on this thread all ready.

I didn't get the impression that he asked her not to testify. He asked her to stop "defending" him. I presumed he meant to other people, not in court

is_that_so

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

It’s uncanny that the Jackson camp claim that the accusers are in it for the money. If anyone knows anything about being ‘in it for the money’ the jacksons do. MJs money is their bread and butter.

Thee are no camps. There are different opinions but this type of simplistic labelling helps people dismiss arguments they dislike.

innuendo141

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I didn't get the impression that he asked her not to testify. He asked her to stop "defending" him. I presumed he meant to other people, not in court

To be fair, its not 100% clear in the documentary, and the information given per the earlier claims really throws the whole thing altogether. I think he meant when they were asked to defend him in 05, which there are question marks over too

Beechwoodspark

Culkin was the biggest child star in the world at the time

MJ being the devious and intelligent man that he was, knew Culkin was off limits and also it would bolster his image if culkin said nothing ever happened.

MJ was NOT some idiot man child. He was extremely devious and clever.

ceadaoin.

innuendo141 wrote: »

To be fair, its not 100% clear in the documentary, and the information given per the earlier claims really throws the whole thing altogether. I think he meant when they were asked to defend him in 05, which there are question marks over too

He claims he received a call from Jackson asking him to defend him once again. He said no. Can anyone disprove that this happened? His mother and father were on at him to help his friend and he told them to stop defending him because he wasn't a good man. His mother understood he was saying that he was abused but didn't push it because he made it clear that he didn't want to discuss it. His mother was aware since that point that something sexual had happened between him and Jackson. Therefore when he died in 2009 she was aware of it so she may very well have been happy

100% clear to me. Some of the people in here who are rubbishing every single aspect of the documentary and what Robson and Safechuck say haven't even watched it.

innuendo141

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He claims he received a call from Jackson asking him to defend him once again. He said no. His mother and father were on at him to help his friend and he told them to stop defending him because he wasn't a good man. His mother understood he was saying that he was abused but didn't push it because he made it clear that he didn't want to discuss it. His mother was aware since that point that something sexual had happened between him and Jackson. Therefore when he died in 2009 she was aware of it so she may very well have been happy

100% clear to me. Some of the people in here rubbishing every aspect of the documentary haven't even watched it.

Jeeny, relax I wasnt disagreeing with you, only saying what I had thought he meant, considering I had known previously he stated he did not realise he had been abused until 2013. No need to jump down my throat, jesus.

hetuzozaho

Lots of media /podcasts picking up on it now. Will be interesting if anything else comes out of the next short while. Feel like media people I've listened to are leaning toward the two guys.

One I just listened to there now:

"Sean Rameswaram speaks with the film's director and a lawyer representing the estate of Michael Jackson."

https://pca.st/I91i

Hannibal_Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Culkin was the biggest child star in the world at the time

MJ being the devious and intelligent man that he was, knew Culkin was off limits and also it would bolster his image if culkin said nothing ever happened.

MJ was NOT some idiot man child. He was extremely devious and clever.

Do you think MJs staff lied at the trial then?

ceadaoin.

Safechuck never said that he didn't realise he was abused. He didn't realise the impact it had on him and his mental health until he started therapy. For a long while he thought it was his idea and that he enjoyed it because he was in love with Michael Jackson. It's consistent with how victims of grooming and sexual abuse often feel

81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.”
82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally able to discuss the abuse during his treatment. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with [REDACTED]. He is going to therapy one a week. Plaintiff tries to appear that he has “it together”, but struggles on a daily basis with his panic, depression and anxiety. He did not realize how “sick” it was that DECEDENT did the things he did to him as a child until he began therapy. Until he had his own children and realized how innocent they were and what “blank slates” they were, he did not appreciate that when you are made to think as a child that something was “your idea” it did not seem as bad as it actually was, as in the case of his abuse by DECEDENT

Flippyfloppy

is_that_so wrote: »

Thee are no camps. There are different opinions but this type of simplistic labelling helps people dismiss arguments they dislike.

The camp I am referring to is the Jackson family. If you want reread my original post replacing the word camp with family, it might ease your despair on the issue.

tylercheribini

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

tylercheribini wrote: »

The whole "they are just out for the money" argument holds no water, I can think of easier ways of earning a living than participating in a gruelling four hour documentary publicly detailing that I sucked off a man etc..

And having millions upon millions of people hate you who will try to discredit you any way they can. Who would willingly sign up for that stress? I’ve heard people say that the two accusers’ careers are in the toilet. But I can’t find anything about Safechuck in that regard. I think he isn’t in the entertainment industry any more and just lives a low-key life. Nobody has lived a perfect life. I bet if any of us accused Jackson of something, somebody would find something to try and discredit us with.

Like any institution that is desperate to protect itself at all costs,smear and discredit the whistle-blower, something we are all too familar with in this country.

fin12

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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

And what research have you posted except talk sh*te about his music been banned. So pathetic.

innuendo141

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Safechuck never said that he didn't realise he was abused. He didn't realise the impact it had on him and his mental health until he started therapy. For a long while he thought it was his idea and that he enjoyed it because he was in love with Michael Jackson. It's consistent with how victims of grooming and sexual abuse often feel

Check out @dandelts’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/dandelts/status/1105039839848587264?s=09

This seems to suggest to me that he is saying exactly what Robson is- that he was aware of what went on the entire time, but did not realise that it was sexual abuse. This is in line with what Robson says. Again thats how Im readin it, no need to have a go, Im just saying.

Beechwoodspark

fin12 wrote: »

And what research have you posted except talk sh*te about his music been banned. So pathetic.

Told you. I’m too busy to be anyone’s personal researcher. Look it up yourself and come to your own conclusions

And his music has been effectively banned on RTÉ ! Great news.

I bet his dwindling number of hardcore fans will probably bombard RTÉ switchboard to play tripe such as “You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk) or “Earth song”

Pathetic indeed

ceadaoin.

innuendo141 wrote: »

Check out @dandelts’;s Tweet: https://twitter.com/dandelts/status/1105039839848587264?s=09

This seems to suggest to me that he is saying exactly what Robson is- that he was aware of what went on the entire time, but did not realise that it was sexual abuse. This is in line with what Robson says. Again thats how Im readin it, no need to have a go, Im just saying.

I don't know why you keep saying I'm "jumping down your throat" or "having a go" lol. It says here in the lawsuit details and in the documentary that he made his mother aware that something had happened between them, years prior to MJs death. So she knew, just not the details.

One to two days prior to DECEDENT’s call to his mother, Plaintiff had told his mother about the call he had received from DECEDENT and that he had declined to testify at the criminal trial. Plaintiff talked to her about the call and told his mother that DECEDENT was a “bad man,” but was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the very briefest statement that he had been abused. Plaintiff told his mother not to let DECEDENT know that she had found out. Plaintiff was panicked that DECEDENT would find out that he had told his mother. When DECEDENT called Plaintiffs mother, she pretended that she was not aware of DECEDENT’s earlier threatening call to her son, or about the abuse.

Hannibal_Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Told you. I’m too busy to be anyone’s personal researcher. Look it up yourself and come to your own conclusions

And his music has been effectively banned on RTÉ ! Great news.

I bet his dwindling number of hardcore fans will probably bombard RTÉ switchboard to play tripe such as “You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk) or “Earth song”

Pathetic indeed

Im pretty sure i read earlier that sales of his music are up.

fin12

Banning something always has the opposite effect, his music sales will go through the roof now.

innuendo141

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know why you keep saying I'm "jumping down your throat" or "having a go" lol. It says here in the lawsuit details and in the documentary that he made his mother aware that something had happened between them, years prior to MJs death. So she knew, just not the details.

I suppose that document from 2014 doesn't give a date, but it does state that he didn't realise until therapy that he had been a sexual abuse victim. However, it does suggest it was close to the date he made his claim, being 2013.

Irish Guitarist

I have no problem with the radio not playing his songs. I could live with never hearing his music again.

I don't agree with writing him out of history the way The Simpsons are trying to do though. In 1991 he was a massive name in the world of music and I'm sure the episode he appeared on helped popularise the cartoon. It's disingenuous to act like that never happened. It's very similar to the BBC cutting Jimmy Savile out of Top Of The Pops clips as if he never existed.

lee_baby_simms

fin12 wrote: »

Banning something always has the opposite effect, his music sales will go through the roof now.

I think the phrase "all publicity is good publicity" doesn't always apply when paedophilia is involved.

8-10

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

“You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk)

Written by R Kelly, what do you expect?

ToBeFrank123

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I think the phrase "all publicity is good publicity" doesn't always apply when paedophilia is involved.

Just a guess but I'd say a lot of teenagers these days would struggle to tell you who MJ was or name his songs and are looking up the music on youtube.

ToBeFrank123

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Told you. I’m too busy to be anyone’s personal researcher. Look it up yourself and come to your own conclusions

And his music has been effectively banned on RTÉ ! Great news.

I bet his dwindling number of hardcore fans will probably bombard RTÉ switchboard to play tripe such as “You are not alone” (creepy as fcuk) or “Earth song”

Pathetic indeed

RTE will have to hire an army of phone operators to man the switchboard...I must listen to the wireless later to see if there is any mention of it or if the lovely girl continuity announcer says anything.

is_that_so

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Just a guess but I'd say a lot of teenagers these days would struggle to tell you who MJ was or name his songs and are looking up the music on youtube.

ABBA's music had almost faded from memory barely a decade after they split up when a series of popular films and a musical pushed them right back into the public eye again. ABBA Gold helped too.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And having millions upon millions of people hate you who will try to discredit you any way they can. Who would willingly sign up for that stress? I’ve heard people say that the two accusers’ careers are in the toilet. But I can’t find anything about Safechuck in that regard. I think he isn’t in the entertainment industry any more and just lives a low-key life. Nobody has lived a perfect life. I bet if any of us accused Jackson of something, somebody would find something to try and discredit us with.

What did they expect? They had years to make a complaint to the cops. Does anyone know if they did? And if not why not?

If you go on national tv don't be surprised if you get positive and negative attention. It comes with the territory.

Still waiting for new victims in light of the program. Hundreds came forward after weinstein and saville were uncovered. And practically after every celebrity was exposed people came out with accusations.

Except those who were innocent like Cliff Richard, William Roche, and those accused by "Nick".

Hannibal_Smith

Couldn't tell you the last time i heard a Michael Jackson song on the radio.

tylercheribini

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Couldn't tell you the last time i heard a Michael Jackson song on the radio.

Exactly,storm in a tea cup, Id be surprised if the RTE weekly roster contained more than a few instances anyway.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still waiting for new victims in light of the program. Hundreds came forward after weinstein and saville were uncovered. And practically after every celebrity was exposed people came out with accusations.

I'm kinda waiting for more too.
But this seems like he was on relationships with them for long periods. As opposed to Saville and weinstein. So maybe he didn't need to. He had what he needed every night in his bedroom, hassle free. For years. Yikes if true

tylercheribini

hetuzozaho wrote: »

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Still waiting for new victims in light of the program. Hundreds came forward after weinstein and saville were uncovered. And practically after every celebrity was exposed people came out with accusations.

I'm kinda waiting for more too.
But this seems like he was on relationships with them for long periods. As opposed to Saville and weinstein. So maybe he didn't need to. He had what he needed every night in his bedroom, hassle free. For years. Yikes if true

Although Savile and Weinstein possessed considerable clout, I think the power and influence Jackson wielded at his peak was in a different stratosphere. Interestingly, Savile, like Jackson, had plans to build a childrens hospital too.

fin12

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Just a guess but I'd say a lot of teenagers these days would struggle to tell you who MJ was or name his songs and are looking up the music on youtube.

That’s rubbish, I was at an mj tribute show last year, plenty of kids and young people in the audience. If the parents like his music, they will introduce it to their children.

Beechwoodspark

fin12 wrote: »

That’s rubbish, I was at an mj tribute show last year, plenty of kids and young people in the audience. If the parents like his music, they will introduce it to their children.

....shudder...

Mr.Wemmick

fin12 wrote: »

That’s rubbish, I was at an mj tribute show last year, plenty of kids and young people in the audience. If the parents like his music, they will introduce it to their children.

My 14 year old knows who he is and calls him a Paedo. So do all his friends - they've gleaned enough from the news and snippets here and there to know about him with young boys.

But then they call any dodgy looking guy of a certain age a Paedo, think they're obsessed :pac:

I like MJ's & QJ's music, they don't.. more into the 90s with Kurt Cobain, Red Hot Chilli Peppers sort.

marklazarcovic

Jesus Christ ,I'm sick reading that line,why haven't they come out now, now now now..

It doesn't work like that ffs,its normally 30+ years later after a ruined adulthood,when you reach rock bottom and can't go lower ,then you might admit to yourself that you were abused,yes you may have loved the abuser,got jealous when he went with someone else instead of you.. because that's the fcking grip they hold on you,your young brain forced to accept things as norm that are anything but..
And you can spend a lifetime hiding from those memories because you know opening that can of worms could push you over the edge ..

And rather than risk the bit of a life you maintain,you keep quiet,say nothing,hope it goes away.

The shame is real, undeserved,but haunts you anyway.

So,yea.

ToBeFrank123

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Jesus Christ ,I'm sick reading that line,why haven't they come out now, now now now..

It doesn't work like that ffs,its normally 30+ years later after a ruined adulthood,when you reach rock bottom and can't go lower ,then you might admit to yourself that you were abused,yes you may have loved the abuser,got jealous when he went with someone else instead of you.. because that's the fcking grip they hold on you,your young brain forced to accept things as norm that are anything but..
And you can spend a lifetime hiding from those memories because you know opening that can of worms could push you over the edge ..

And rather than risk the bit of a life you maintain,you keep quiet,say nothing,hope it goes away.

The shame is real, undeserved,but haunts you anyway.

So,yea.

It's 30-40 years later at this stage. So you've undermined your own argument. Jackson was at his peak from 1980 to 1995. As for victims waiting 30 years after someones death or publicity around them, horse manure.

Here's Stuart Hall's example.

Media coverage of the case led to more women coming forward to state that Hall had also sexually abused them.[20] On 22 January 2013, he was charged with raping a 22-year-old woman in 1976 and indecently assaulting 10 more girls, then aged from 9 to 17 years old, between 1967 and 1986.[21][22] Speaking to reporters after an appearance at Preston Magistrates Court on 7 February 2013, Hall again denied any wrongdoing, calling the charges "pernicious, callous, cruel and, above all, spurious".[17]

At a pre-trial hearing at Preston Crown Court on 16 April 2013, Hall pleaded guilty to 14 charges of indecent assault involving 13 girls aged between 9 and 17 years old. He was released on bail pending sentencing on 17 June. Reporting restrictions prevented the media from making the news public until 2 May 2013, when the Crown Prosecution Service elected not to pursue the rape charge or three other indecent assault charges relating to the same complainant, who had decided not to give evidence. Hall made a statement through his barrister, issuing an "unreserved apology" to his victims.[2][23][24]

In July 2013, the media reported that 17 women were preparing to launch civil claims against Hall and the BBC, on whose premises a number of sexual assaults had allegedly taken place. Lawyers for the women confirmed that several of the claims related to alleged offences that were not part of Hall's criminal prosecution.[34]

On 15 July 2013, Lancashire Police confirmed that five new allegations of rape and sexual assault had been made against Hall, including the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl.[35] These investigations resulted in a further 16 charges of rape and indecent assault being laid against Hall in October 2013.[36] On 6 November 2013 he appeared in court in relation to these charges, but did not make any plea. He made a further appearance in court on 29 November; at a preliminary court hearing on 28 February 2014, he pleaded not guilty to raping two young girls. He went on trial at Preston Crown Court on 6 May 2014,[37] where he admitted indecently assaulting a girl under 16 but denied 20 further charges.[38] On 16 May 2014, Hall was found not guilty of 15 charges of rape and four counts of indecent assault but was found guilty on one count of indecent assault.[39] At Preston Crown Court on 23 May, Mr Justice Turner sentenced Hall to a further two years and six months in prison, to run consecutively to his existing prison sentence of 30 months.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

Weinstein, Saville, Clifford, Harris and all those found guilty were the same. Initial media reports followed by victims coming forward in numbers after the publicity.

In MJs case, since his death we've had (A) The self confessed Master of Deception Wade Robson whose own mother said he should get an Oscar for lying. But hey you all know him better than his own mother.
And (B) Safechuck, a guy claimed to have been called to testify in 2005 even though this is patently false and whose mother claimed to have celebrated when Jackson died in 2009 because he couldn't "hurt any more kids" even though she knew nothing about the abuse until 2013.

And for the umpteenth time, why are people accepting one sided untested testimony as FACT? Untested allegations are not fact, they have to be tried and proven in court. And they have to pass by a judge, jury and defence lawyer. This is page 1 paragraph 1 of legal justice that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

marklazarcovic

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It's 30-40 years later at this stage. So you've undermined your own argument. Jackson was at his peak from 1980 to 1995. As for victims waiting 30 years after someones death or publicity around them, horse manure.

Here's Stuart Hall's example.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(presenter)

Weinstein, Saville, Clifford, Harris and all those found guilty were the same. Initial media reports followed by victims coming forward in numbers after the publicity.

In MJs case, since his death we've had (A) The self confessed Master of Deception Wade Robson whose own mother said he should get an Oscar for lying. But hey you all know him better than his own mother.
And (B) Safechuck, a guy claimed to have been called to testify in 2005 even though this is patently false and whose mother claimed to have celebrated when Jackson died in 2009 because he couldn't "hurt any more kids" even though she knew nothing about the abuse until 2013.

And for the umpteenth time, why are people accepting one sided untested testimony as FACT? Untested allegations are not fact, they have to be tried and proven in court. And they have to pass by a judge, jury and defence lawyer. This is page 1 paragraph 1 of legal justice stuff that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

No victim is waiting for anything for Christs sake,its not a decision you make, oh I'll just give it 5 more years,maybe 10,then I'll tell, you haven't a clue.

Most don't ever tell.

marklazarcovic

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Jesus Christ ,I'm sick reading that line,why haven't they come out now, now now now..

It doesn't work like that ffs,its normally 30+ years later after a ruined adulthood,when you reach rock bottom and can't go lower ,then you might admit to yourself that you were abused,yes you may have loved the abuser,got jealous when he went with someone else instead of you.. because that's the fcking grip they hold on you,your young brain forced to accept things as norm that are anything but..
And you can spend a lifetime hiding from those memories because you know opening that can of worms could push you over the edge ..

And rather than risk the bit of a life you maintain,you keep quiet,say nothing,hope it goes away.

The shame is real, undeserved,but haunts you anyway.

So,yea.

Excellent post. This is how child abuse affects people right through their lives.

Once again it's clear that there are people on this thread who know nothing about abuse and have set their own arbitary standards on how victims should behave. Which are completely removed from reality.