Micky Jackson in trouble again

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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".

How many victims does there need to be? Jackson isn’t Saville. There might not be hundreds. Does his victim count have to match Savill’s?

As for the two men. I’m sure they knew what a hostile reaction they’d get from some corners. That’s my point. Who would put themselves through that predictable response?

hetuzozaho

Flying Fox wrote: »

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.

Some of them sound like bots. They just reply with a big wall of text with all the same stuff. It's really odd.

ToBeFrank123

marklazarcovic wrote: »

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.

Ok this is proof of nothing in the current context. Most might not tell, but some do. We know this from high profile cases in the UK. People come forward either publicly or anonymously. They write letters. They go to their local police station.
They talk to their parents who then represent them. They go to lawyers.

Except we know if the accused is innocent as happened in several cases in the UK. You know Cliff Richard, William Roche and the accused by the fantasist "Nick" were innocent because it was usually only one person who made an accusation and when that accuser was focused on it became clear they were telling porkies.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Some of them sound like bots. They just reply with a big wall of text with all the same stuff. It's really odd.

Is it allowed to describe someone as a bot on here?

ToBeFrank123

Flying Fox wrote: »

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.

No seriously. As an supposed expert on abuse, the poster said the abused generally come forward 30 years later.

Great. So where are they?

Lambasting other posters as knowing nothing about abuse just doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

This is not a contest of who knows the most about abuse.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Ok this is proof of nothing in the current context. Most might not tell, but some do. We know this from high profile cases in the UK. People come forward either publicly or anonymously. They write letters. They go to their local police station.
They talk to their parents who then represent them. They go to lawyers.

Except we know if the accused is innocent as happened in several cases in the UK. You know Cliff Richard, William Roche and the accused by the fantasist "Nick" were innocent because it was usually only one person who made an accusation and when that accuser was focused on it became clear they were telling porkies.

Yes, where there is an individual accuser and no prior pattern of suspicious behaviour. You cannot compare Cliff Richard and Bill Roche to Jackson, and it's utterly ridiculous to try.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

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 that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

Ceadaoin asked a pertinent question earlier, bolded in the post below:

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

Can you disprove Safechuck’s claim that MJ rang him?

Safechuck said he told his mother in 2005 to stop defending MJ because he wasn’t a good man but didn’t further elaborate. She apparently read between the lines.

Hannibal_Smith

Flying Fox wrote: »

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.

No its not clear at all. You havent a clue what people's knowledge on child abuse is. People have added another dimension to the accusations made against Michael Jackson. Its up to each of us whether they are taken on board or not, but i certainly wouldnt get personal about it.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

No seriously. As an supposed expert on abuse, the poster said the abused generally come forward 30 years later.

Great. So where are they?

Lambasting other posters as knowing nothing about abuse just doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

This is not a contest of who knows the most about abuse.

This is just nasty, I'm not claiming to be an expert but I do have experience and I know of others who have also.

You have made it abundantly clear from the utter drivel you've posted about abuse victims that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm challenging your points, not getting into a competition FFS.

As for your question of where are they? Well two of them told their story to the world, their names are James Safechuck and Wade Robson.

ToBeFrank123

Flying Fox wrote: »

Yes, where there is an individual accuser and no prior pattern of suspicious behaviour. You cannot compare Cliff Richard and Bill Roche to Jackson, and it's utterly ridiculous to try.

OK I'm getting tired of this nonsense. You clearly don't have any clue about the entire Jackson saga from day 1. You've watched a documentary and made your mind up. You've also read some allegations about Jackson that were tried in court in the past and proved to be nonsense and thrown out.

So Jackson has been found guilty in the minds of many based on documentary interviews with two proven liars without any cross examination and allegations that were tested in court and found not to stand up.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

I will leave you now with a quote from Abraham Lincoln about lynch mobs. It seems very relevant.
In 1837 he complained about:

"the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country—the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice".

G'night!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Some of them sound like bots. They just reply with a big wall of text with all the same stuff. It's really odd.

And link-dumping. Lots and lots of link-dumping.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Is it allowed to describe someone as a bot on here?

Report the post I guess and find out.

Ok, I'm done trying to reason with people who refuse to open their eyes. Enjoy your delusion.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

G'night!

Goodnight dude!

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Can you disprove Safechuck’s claim that MJ rang him?

We've been over this a million times on this thread. Safechuck was not going to be called as a witness, and was essentially barred from being a witness as the judge said no more witnesses.

ToBeFrank123

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And link-dumping. Lots and lots of link-dumping.

Link dumping? WTF? I posted a quote and a link to the website as per forum rules.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We've been over this a million times on this thread. Safechuck was not going to be called as a witness, was never going to be called as a witness. Why would MJ call someone who was effectively barred by the judge from being a witness?

Can you prove that Michael Jackson didn’t call Safechuck? As in, pick up the telephone and call him? Yes or no. This is Safechuck’s claim and what you have posted above doesn’t disprove it.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Link dumping? WTF? I posted a quote and a link to the website as per forum rules.

You... you know that you’re not the only poster on this thread defending MJ? Sligeach is mostly who I was referring to there. Jays, self-absorbed or what?

BorneTobyWilde

How much money will the Jackson Estate have to give to these two con artists to shut them up for good, can imagine they are in talks as we speak.

hetuzozaho

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

How much money will the Jackson Estate have to give to these two con artists to shut them up for good, can imagine they are in talks as we speak.

I reckon the Jackson estate are experts at it by now

fryup

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

How much money will the Jackson Estate have to give to these two con artists to shut them up for good, can imagine they are in talks as we speak.

the jackson estate should fight it tooth & nail.....cause if they don't other charlatans will chance their arm

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We've been over this a million times on this thread. Safechuck was not going to be called as a witness, and was essentially barred from being a witness as the judge said no more witnesses.

And when did the judge decide this? Before or after Jackson called him? You know the dates yeah? Maybe Jackson called him personally to see if he was on side in case he was needed. It's really not that unbelievable. There's no way you can state with certainty that Jackson didn't call him is there?

We've also been over a million times that safechucks mother knew about the abuse before 2009. But doesn't stop you and others trotting out the line that she was lying about being happy Jackson died because she hadn't a clue it happened. She did

Also the Jackson's latest defence is apparently that it couldn't have happened because Wade was in a long term relationship with Michael's niece, set up by Michael himself. I saw it mentioned earlier but didn't realise they are talking from the age of 9-18.Wtf, 9?! Just making themselves look even weirder tbh. Who "sets up" 9 year olds up and describes it as a relationship and "dating". The only thing that should be being set up at that age is playdates. That's. Not. Normal. And it doesn't disprove anything at all.

Kimbot

MOD Deebles McBeebles thread ban is now up and can post again in this thread.

Lillyfae

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

his own mother.

See I don't actually care what she thinks or says about him because she gave a dodgy, almost 40 year old man unfettered access to her own child for a few flights and some nights of five star accomodation

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Also the Jackson's latest defence is apparently that it couldn't have happened because Wade was in a long term relationship with Michael's niece, set up by Michael himself. I saw it mentioned earlier but didn't realise they are talking from the age of 9-18.Wtf, 9?! Just making themselves look even weirder tbh. Who "sets up" 9 year olds up and describes it as a relationship and "dating". The only thing that should be being set up at that age is playdates. That's. Not. Normal.

It's not the "latest defence" defense is it? It is a person who is still alive who knew both Jackson and Robson very well, her story is pretty key TBF.

Anyway, she explained it yesterday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XutM3RmEUEo

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And it doesn't disprove anything at all.

Didn't Wade say Jackson actively discouraged him away from girls?

More baloney it would seem.

hetuzozaho

ceadaoin. wrote: »

.Wtf, 9?! Just making themselves look even weirder tbh. Who "sets up" 9 year olds up and describes it as a relationship and "dating". The only thing that should be being set up at that age is playdates. That's. Not. Normal. And it doesn't disprove anything at all.

Yeah they come out with some wierd stuff.

Watching an interview with Taj Jackson and the interviewer was saying, and everyone knew Michael was sleeping alone with young boys? Taj interjects, "and girls". Haha

Taj is defending Michael in the above interview

hetuzozaho

Reading an article this morning about his marriage to Debbie Rowe. Some more interesting reading if true!

One line, "His best man was an eight-year-old boy". Surely not!

ElBastardo1

After reading through the thread i'm actually amazed at how people are so sure he did and didn't touch the kids. My opinion is there is a strong possibility that he behaved inappropriately with children and that is based off an opinion from listening to the two guys in the documentary and also the other testimonies of previous victims, but in saying that I wouldn't argue over at as at this point the only people that actually knows the truth are a small handful of people. If there is one thing we have learned from this is celebs, no matter how famous should not be sleeping in bedrooms with kids.

Anyone defending him needs to take a step back and think, if a gun was put to your head would you put your life on the line for your belief he is innocent. Remember, this a guy who completely disfigured his face and repeatadly claimed he never had work done to lighten his skin and claimed he only had a few minor surgeries on his nose. He was a compulsive liar.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And when did the judge decide this? Before or after Jackson called him? You know the dates yeah? Maybe Jackson called him personally to see if he was on side in case he was needed. It's really not that unbelievable. There's no way you can state with certainty that Jackson didn't call him is there?

He alleges under oath Jackson called him and threatened him to testify before the trial, he alleges under oath that Jackson's lawyers and then his assistant called him during the trial and tried to intimidate him into testifying, he then alleges under oath that Jackson rang him "towards the end of the trial" and wanted to meet him to convince him to testify.

Safechuck under oath stated the reason they needed him to testify was because a former employee was making an allegation against Jackson.

That allegation was that the employee saw Jackson and Macaulay Culkin alone playing a video game and Jackson was abusing him. Safechuck was not part of the 2005 trial, he was not named as an alleged victim.

The only 3 alleged victims allowed by the Judge early on in trial were Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes.

So he was being pressured to give evidence in a trial that had nothing to do with him and he was precluded from participating in anyway. It's farcical nonsense.

So can we kill that myth (lies) once and for all please?

SusieBlue

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 that some people struggle with. Its so basic.

Your dismissive, one dimensional ignorant view of how adults who were sexually abused as children should conduct themselves is extremely frustrating to read.

There is no handbook "one size fits all" approach to dealing with such trauma. Some people never disclose what happened to them for the rest of their lives.

Maybe do some actual research into it, because your current narrow minded theory of what YOU think abuse victims should or shouldn't do is not only wildly inaccurate, its also a clear attempt to shoehorn their behaviour into "proof" that they must be lying.

Boggles

SusieBlue wrote: »

Some people never disclose what happened to them for the rest of their lives.

Yeah, that's true. Safechuck under oath kept repeating his one fear, the one thing he dreaded the one thing that gave him panic attacks, drove him to drugs and depression was if his "relationship" with Jackson was ever made public. If anyone every found out.

That's until he turns on the telly in May 2013 and sees the "master of deception" telling a talk show host how many 100s of millions he was inline to collect.

Jimmy was off to Wades lawyers like a rat up a drain pipe, any notion of "fear" evaporated like it never existed.

The 2 boys are selling a pup in order to enrich themselves. It's as clear as can be.

It has escalated so much now they gone beyond the point of no return.

A far cry from when Robson sealed his deposition in the hope that if he kept it all quite he would get thrown a few million and his wife wouldn't leave him.

It is now quite the snowball, but of course this is no where near the end, people may have to get back on the stand and start telling some truths under oath and more importantly cross examination.

hetuzozaho

The alarm system for people coming toward the bedroom, really jumps out at me. Along with the being alone there with children.

frosty123

Boggles wrote: »

It is now quite the snowball, but of course this is no where near the end, people may have to get back on the stand and start telling some truths under oath and more importantly cross examination.

it doesn't have to go to court......all is needed is to have them on live TV with an experienced interviewer asking them probing questions...and it will all fall apart

Boggles

frosty123 wrote: »

it doesn't have to go to court......all is needed is to have them on live TV with an experienced interviewer asking them probing questions...and it will all fall apart

You mean not like Oprah, who showed the unashamedly biased "documentary" to an audience of 100 abuse survivors and then straight after it "interviewed" them?

Powerful journalism.

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

Dakota Dan

I wonder could bubbles shed any light on the shenanigans.

Deebles McBeebles

Dakota Dan wrote: »

I wonder could bubbles shed any light on the shenanigans.

I hate to tell you this, Dan.....Bubbles is dead.

micks_address

Finished part 2 last night. What was the big budget movie wade was hired to direct before he had his breakdown?

Gwynplaine

She eat my banana, but there ain't a inch a hair on her god damn body, y'all know what I'm saying.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

He alleges under oath Jackson called him and threatened him to testify before the trial, he alleges under oath that Jackson's lawyers and then his assistant called him during the trial and tried to intimidate him into testifying, he then alleges under oath that Jackson rang him "towards the end of the trial" and wanted to meet him to convince him to testify.

Safechuck under oath stated the reason they needed him to testify was because a former employee was making an allegation against Jackson.

That allegation was that the employee saw Jackson and Macaulay Culkin alone playing a video game and Jackson was abusing him. Safechuck was not part of the 2005 trial, he was not named as an alleged victim.

The only 3 alleged victims allowed by the Judge early on in trial were Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes.

So he was being pressured to give evidence in a trial that had nothing to do with him and he was precluded from participating in anyway. It's farcical nonsense.

So can we kill that myth (lies) once and for all please?

While it is indeed farcical nonsense, it ultimately is the word of a living guy (Safechuck) against the word of a dead guy (Jackson). Whose word is going to win in that situation?!

You can essentially say anything about a dead person and a lot of the time (not always) there is no way of proving its true or false if there are no independent witnesses.

Jerichoholic

Watched the first part.

Jesus Christ almighty!

ToBeFrank123

micks_address wrote: »

Finished part 2 last night. What was the big budget movie wade was hired to direct before he had his breakdown?

Very good question!

Space Dog

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Very good question!

According to Wikipedia it was Step Up Revolution

ToBeFrank123

SusieBlue wrote: »

Your dismissive, one dimensional ignorant view of how adults who were sexually abused as children should conduct themselves is extremely frustrating to read.

There is no handbook "one size fits all" approach to dealing with such trauma. Some people never disclose what happened to them for the rest of their lives.

Maybe do some actual research into it, because your current narrow minded theory of what YOU think abuse victims should or shouldn't do is not only wildly inaccurate, its also a clear attempt to shoehorn their behaviour into "proof" that they must be lying.

Seriously? I raise legitimate questions about Robson and Safechucks credibility and this is what you throw at me?

It doesn't matter if the accusations are murder, abuse, theft, etc etc, the credibility of witnesses must first be established beyond all doubt.

When their credibility is established beyond doubt, the next step is to look at the accusations and the evidence.

But so far we are stuck on the first hurdle, the credibility hurdle. Some people jumped that hurdle without bothering to even think about it.

Finally all abuse victims should come forward, but go to the police directly or indirectly (through a friend or relative) and then go through the courts if the claims are valid..

They shouldn't start off writing a book about it, then attempt and fail to sue the estate, then make a one sided documentary with no cross examination.

Boggles

micks_address wrote: »

Finished part 2 last night. What was the big budget movie wade was hired to direct before he had his breakdown?

Step Up 4.

He blamed Jackson for the reason he couldn't direct.

Jackson said to him when he was younger "I think you are going to direct a film someday", or something like that. Robson remembered this and had a break down because of the pressure or something.

His drug abuse and history of mental illness in his family had nothing to with it. It was all Jacksons fault for telling him over 20 years early in an off the cuff remark about directing a movie.

IAMAMORON

I finished watching both episodes last night. I can't say I was shocked, he was definitely odd.

For me there is way too much smoke in the argument for there not to be any fire. I don't buy the legal acquittal argument either, they probably have perjured themselves, one didn't btw, he just walked away and said no more. The dancer was probably terrified how his career would pan out if he hung him. He was doing too well for himself on the back of his relationship with Jackson.

It is entirely plausible that he never touched Macauley Culkin because he was to big a name. His main victims all appear to be nobodies who he groomed.

It is really really sad.

Jerichoholic

Boggles wrote: »

Step Up 4.

He blamed Jackson for the reason he couldn't direct.

Jackson said to him when he was younger "I think you are going to direct a film someday", or something like that. Robson remembered this and had a break down because of the pressure or something.

His drug abuse and history of mental illness in his family had nothing to with it. It was all Jacksons fault for telling him over 20 years early in an off the cuff remark about directing a movie.

Or maybe it's because he was abused by an evil paedophile since he was 7 years old?

I just can't decide.

Boggles

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Or maybe it's because he was abused by an evil paedophile since he was 7 years old?

Allegedly.

That's a word that should be at the forefront when you are dealing with the self titled "master of deception"

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson said to him when he was younger "I think you are going to direct a film someday", or something like that.

Probably just pillow talk

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Allegedly.

That's a word that should be at the forefront when you are dealing with the self titled "master of deception"

Its a word that has been completely missing from this thread.

Until something is proven in court it remains alleged. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Unless innocent until proven guilty in a documentary becomes the new norm.

hetuzozaho

Apparently Culkin confirmed the alarm outside the room, whilst in court. I don't like that alarm at all.

"There was like a walkway kind of thing, where if someone was approaching the door, it would kind of like 'ding-dong ding-dong'," Culkin said in court.

"When anyone would approach the room you'd hear this kind of... soft kind of alarm."

KikiLaRue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its a word that has been completely missing from this thread.

Until something is proven in court it remains alleged. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Unless innocent until proven guilty in a documentary becomes the new norm.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is, as you say, the standard we are held to in a court of law. So, if I was on a jury in a Michael Jackson trial, I would be obliged legally to offer him presumption of innocence.

As a general observer, I am not held to the same standard. I can hold whatever opinion I like based on the information available to me.

I think OJ is a murderer and I think Michael Jackson is a child molester. And you can agree or disagree, that's fine. But freedom of expression is another important principle of democracy, I get to hold these opinions.

ToBeFrank123

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is, as you say, the standard we are held to in a court of law. So, if I was on a jury in a Michael Jackson trial, I would be obliged legally to offer him presumption of innocence.

As a general observer, I am not held to the same standard. I can hold whatever opinion I like based on the information available to me.

I think OJ is a murderer and I think Michael Jackson is a child molester. And you can agree or disagree, that's fine. But freedom of expression is another important principle of democracy, I get to hold these opinions.

Oh dear. Lets see how long that stays on here