Micky Jackson in trouble again

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

I'd imagine without doubt given the evidence against his father.

But he would have lost a 100m on not fulfilling the contractual obligations of finishing his tour.

But we have been through all this haven't we?

You know, if I was Michael Jackson and I was accused of something so egregious that I was sure I could be found not guilty of, I’d take that loss. He wouldn’t have been broke afterwards, even losing that money. Probably not even close. And royalties would continue to roll in. So yeah, my good name would be worth that price. But hey, that’s just me.

joeguevara

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You know what savvy means, right? Divorcing his parents if they were abusive? That’s savviness, right there. You literally including an example in your post.

I think the poster was arguing that the parents weren’t savvy (as described) rather than Culken.

Also as Cullen had the Sabine’s to emancipate himself from his parents and make public their behavior it would seem that if there was any abuse by MJ he wouldn’t have held back there either.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You know, if I was Michael Jackson and I was accused of something so egregious that I was sure I could be found not guilty of, I’d take that loss. He wouldn’t have been broke afterwards, even losing that money. Probably not even close. And royalties wouldn’t continue to roll in. So yeah, my good name would be worth that price. But hey, that’s just me.

Yeah, he stated several times he regretted it, it was a big mistake.

But it wasn't just 100m, he would have probably sued for multiples of that.

But like you said easy being an unattached randomer on the internet 15 years later pontificating how you would do something that doesn't effect you or your family in the slightest.

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

He was absolute cat nip for a serial predatory pedophile.

I dunno - I believe Culkin, but like obviously we don't know, so maybe you're right.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Never heard of that.

I did read that allegedly when on the Bad tour in Cork, Sam Smyth and Eamon Dunphy were in the Jury's hotel where Safechuck was staying with Michael Jackson and they wrote 'Little Jimmy' a letter.

Something to do with Safechuck having his own room with a do not disturb sign and the windows blocked out and them just finding the relationship a bit concerning.

Yes, that was commendable of them, if true.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Still not answering the question.. they didn't actually seek monetary compensation did they? And they still haven't sought to gain financially from the accusations, all these years later.

Maybe they were a bunch of criminals (Jackson sure knew how to pick these kinds of families. Weird) but the fact is they didn't and haven't sought money on the back of the allegations. So it kind of casts doubt on the "they were all in it for the money" line

Investigators involved in the case, psychiatrists specialising in child abuse, and child protection agents who interviewed him all found Gavin arvizo to be a credible witness. But what do they know I guess.

Yup.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

Which unbiased blogs have you been reading?

You made the claim, back it up.

I have honestly only ever heard of 5.

:rolleyes: I will not, go look yourself!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

joeguevara wrote: »

I meant that he has come out and said he was never abused or witnessed any. Which is the biggest (imo) indicator that it’s false. But if MJ was an abuser, yes, his so called favourite for want of a better word would have been a target. I think posters accusing others of being paedophile sympathizers to be way creepier.

Maybe he was, but his own (at the time pretty huge fame) could have been enough of a deterrent.

Child abusers are often very careful in who they choose. As creepy as the thought is, likely many other children are considered but filtered out for various reasons.

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

:rolleyes: I will not, go look yourself!

Why would I? It's your claim.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, he stated several times he regretted it, it was a big mistake.

But it wasn't just 100m, he would have probably sued for multiples of that.

But like you said easy being an unattached randomer on the internet 15 years later pontificating how you would do something that doesn't effect you or your family in the slightest.

Now, now, no need to get personal. You have no idea what has happened in my life to form my views.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Now, now, no need to get personal. You have no idea what has happened in my life to form my views.

I didn't get personal.

Your experience or views have absolutely no relation to the point I made.

The only way they could be is if you are Michael Jackson, which you are not obviously.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

Why would I? It's your claim.

You’re the one who wants to know

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You’re the one who wants to know

That's what an internet forum is, you stick up a claim, you get asked to back it up. It's not new.

But you are obviously just on a WUM.

So as you were.

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, that was commendable of them, if true.

It's a shame people didn't speak to Michael and put an end to the sleeping with children altogether.

ceadaoin.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

It's a shame people didn't speak to Michael and put an end to the sleeping with children altogether.

He was advised by numerous people to stop sharing beds with children and to stop with the affectionate public displays but it seems he was unable/didnt want to. Even after being accused he didn't stop. You might almost call it a compulsion.

joeguevara

Boggles wrote: »

That's what an internet forum is, you stick up a claim, you get asked to back it up. It's not new.

But you are obviously just on a WUM.

So as you were.

I had a look. 6 publically accused him but the trials lost by them, settlements made where no truth was established and testimony that has been found to full of errors makes that much smaller.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He was advised by numerous people to stop sharing beds with children and to stop with the affectionate public displays but it seems he was unable/didnt want to. Even after being accused he didn't stop. You might almost call it a compulsion.

No doubt some would read that as him being confident in his innocence. :rolleyes:

Boggles

joeguevara wrote: »

I had a look. 6 publically accused him but the trials lost by them, settlements made where no truth was established and testimony that has been found to full of errors makes that much smaller.

From what I have read there was 5.

Chandler.
The Maids Son.
The Fraudsters Son
And the 2 boys.

The tabloids ran a story about some English guy that Jackson rang up and told him he was masturbating or something, allegedly happened in the 70s.

BBFAN

ceadaoin. wrote: »

This was posted on the other thread. Is this not literally defending and minimising paedophilia? "It didnt happen but even if it did, it's not that bad because it was love, ok!" These are the lengths that people are willing to go to defend Michael Jackson. I mean, why? I don't get it

That post was not only made by a paedo sympathiser by a straight up paedo.

Surely they were banned for the crap??

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

From what I have read there was 5.

Chandler.
The Maids Son.
The Fraudsters Son
And the 2 boys.

The tabloids ran a story about some English guy that Jackson rang up and told him he was masturbating or something, allegedly happened in the 70s.

And maybe at least 2 more who never went public. Interesting that one of these previously had defending jackson and denied any wrongdoing.

In addition, they said their investigation--an enormous undertaking that took 13 months, involved two grand juries and relied upon interviews with more than 400 people--had turned up two more children who said Jackson had molested them, but they too were unwilling to take the stand.

One of those alleged victims is outside the country and thus outside of court jurisdiction, Sneddon said. In addition, Sneddon said, that child had previously made comments generally denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, which would have complicated a prosecution based on his statements even if he had been willing to testify.

The other child said he was molested three times by Jackson and has been in therapy since last fall, Sneddon said.

"After conversations with the counselor, conversations with the child and conversations with the child's attorney, they have expressed their reluctance to go forward and be a participant in a situation where charges were filed and the child was the sole witness against Mr. Jackson," Sneddon said. "I am honoring that request on the part of that particular child victim."

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And maybe at least 2 more who never went public. Interesting that one of these previously had defending jackson and denied any wrongdoing.

Sneddon? He is about as reliable as a chocolate kettle.

But I imagine he is talking about Chandler who fled the country.

Boggles

BBFAN wrote: »

That post was not only made by a paedo sympathiser by a straight up paedo.

Surely they were banned for the crap??

I imagine if indeed true, it was either a new reg or a troll or in fact both.

ceadaoin.

BBFAN wrote: »

That post was not only made by a paedo sympathiser by a straight up paedo.

Surely they were banned for the crap??

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine if indeed true, it was either a new reg or a troll or in fact both.

No it wasn't a re reg, they weren't banned and yes it is true (why would I make that up ffs). it was a person who has posted in this thread recently too. Embarrassing. I hope they're on a wind up with that crap otherwise it's just disturbing

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Sneddon? He is about as reliable as a chocolate kettle.

But I imagine he is talking about Chandler who fled the country.

No, he is talking about another child. They address Chandler in the article too

https://www.latimes.com/la-me-michael-jackson-lawsuit-22-sept-94-story.html

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No, he is talking about another child. They address Chandler in the article too

https://www.latimes.com/la-me-michael-jackson-lawsuit-22-sept-94-story.html

Link doesn't work.

But honestly I wouldn't believe anything Sneddon said, he obviously had huge issues, to the point where he had it in so much for Jackson he put a family of grifters on the stand.

Anyway there is enough information out there for people to make up there minds without bringing "phantom victims" into it solely on the word of the guy that was trying to prosecute him for over a decade.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No it wasn't a re reg, they weren't banned and yes it is true (why would I make that up ffs). it was a person who has posted in this thread recently too. Embarrassing. I hope they're on a wind up with that crap otherwise it's just disturbing

I think I know who you are talking about.

I wouldn't pay any attention to him.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine if indeed true, it was either a new reg or a troll or in fact both.

Nope. The person who posted it joined boards.ie in 2012 and has posted over 19,000 times. The post is still there.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

That's what an internet forum is, you stick up a claim, you get asked to back it up. It's not new.

But you are obviously just on a WUM.

So as you were.

Says the poster who sticks up so many claims it’s laughable, for instance ‘she went to prison for fraud, afaik’ No one bothers to ask you to back it up because all your nonsense comes from pro MJ blogs :rolleyes:

Also, as you were??? Right......

Flippyfloppy

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nope. The person who posted it joined boards.ie in 2012 and has posted over 19,000 times. The post is still there.

What is/was the post?

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Nope. The person who posted it joined boards.ie in 2012 and has posted over 19,000 times. The post is still there.

Oh right, just read it, it's down right creepy all right.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Link doesn't work.

But honestly I wouldn't believe anything Sneddon said, he obviously had huge issues, to the point where he had it in so much for Jackson he put a family of grifters on the stand.

Anyway there is enough information out there for people to make up there minds without bringing "phantom victims" into it solely on the word of the guy that was trying to prosecute him for over a decade.

Had it in for Jackson = doing his job and trying to get a conviction? Honestly I'd believe the word of people like Sneddon and others who were actually involved in the case. He was a well respected public official, I know the Jackson camp tried to paint it like he was doggedly going after him for some personal reason but that's clearly nonsense. I saw an interview with him and he makes it clear it wasnt about that at all. He believed the kids and was trying to do what he was paid to do, nothing more than that. What do you mean he had "huge issues"? He seemed fairly normal to me, no frothing at the mouth or hysterical or even angry that he failed to secure a conviction or anything like you'd expect from a crazed MJ hater lol. If anything he seemed upset on behalf of Gavin Arvizo that he had to go through all that for nothing. All in all, just a normal person

AllForIt

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Haad it and the Beatles trounce MJ, easily. One step ahead of their contemporaries, completely ahead of their time in some of the music they produced, music that stands the test of time and is varied, with wide-reaching and thought-provoking subjects. This band produced ‘A Day In The Life’, ‘Eleanor Rigby’ and ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’. The last one wouldn’t have been out of place 30 years later. Three vastly different, interesting songs. And I would be amazed if they didn’t have more fans than MJ. He’s the 8 to their 10, if even.

Edit: The Beatles represented a societal change no doubt, but their music is long lost. Imagine.

Teepinaw

Sorry I haven't read all posts.

Have you watched the 30 minute documentary
Neverland Firsthand?

https://youtu.be/m4trDbeFWTY

hetuzozaho

Teepinaw wrote: »

Sorry I haven't read all posts.

Have you watched the 30 minute documentary
Neverland Firsthand?

https://youtu.be/m4trDbeFWTY

5 mins in, Brandi describing how her and Wade got together..... Michael being a 9yr old Wade's wingman? Not sure I can make the 30mins

hetuzozaho

Is Taj wearing an MJ (as in Michael Jackson) hat ?

ceadaoin.

Sorry but the Beatles music is "long lost" ? Hahaha. That's all that can be said about that

Teepinaw

hetuzozaho wrote: »

5 mins in, Brandi describing how her and Wade got together..... Michael being a 9yr old Wade's wingman? Not sure I can make the 30mins

They do say that Wade's mum was there!

Teepinaw

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

A new documentary about alleged abuse is going to be screened at Sundance amid death threats.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0125/1025482-police-on-high-alert-for-michael-jackson-doc-screening/

I have to admit that even in the current climate I'm still skeptical of the motivation behind the allegations aimed at Michael Jackson.
Yes he was a complete wacko but still he's one of the greatest musicians of the last century. His "wackyness" I'm sympathetic to due to his exploitation at the hands of his parents and then the music industry and media.

Have a watch of this
https://youtu.be/m4trDbeFWTY

hetuzozaho

Teepinaw wrote: »

They do say that Wade's mum was there!

It's all a bit odd isn't it?

Finished it now. I kinda just feel sorry for Brandi and Taj, they don't seem "all there" or something to me?
Taj looks like MJs number 1 fan anyway. I'm not sure if he could ever process MJ doing anything he has been accused of. Poor guy.
And Brandi spending 10ish(?) years with a guy who now is potentially lying about her Uncle, who "set them up", about abusing him when he was a kid.
Has to be so tough.

I'm still at, what a mess

Teepinaw

hetuzozaho wrote: »

It's all a bit odd isn't it?

Finished it now. I kinda just feel sorry for Brandi and Taj, they don't seem "all there" or something to me?
Taj looks like MJs number 1 fan anyway. I'm not sure if he could ever process MJ doing anything he has been accused of. Poor guy.
And Brandi spending 10ish(?) years with a guy who now is potentially lying about her Uncle, who "set them up", about abusing him when he was a kid.
Has to be so tough.

I'm still at, what a mess

I think they appear perfectly normal. Him wearing the hat isn't a crime! It's a show of solidarity in my eyes, that he's not afraid.

I don't think it's unusual to be introduced formally to someone -and for your parents to be around especially when you're 12! and especially when you're in close proximity to a mega star.

The thing that strikes me is there is zero mention of Brandi in the HBO 4 hour documentary. That's a bit fishy considering they were, according to her, very close (boyfriend/girlfriend) from age 12.

Wonder what will come of it all.

hetuzozaho

Teepinaw wrote: »

I think they appear perfectly normal.

Yeah probably just me, I just always find Taj a bit odd in interviews I've seen.

Teepinaw wrote: »

Him wearing the hat isn't a crime!

Of course not, just thought it looked funny is all.
It's not often you'd see anyone in MJ gear around anymore, Taj still all about it, fair play to him.

hetuzozaho

Teepinaw wrote: »

The thing that strikes me is there is zero mention of Brandi in the HBO 4 hour documentary. That's a bit fishy considering they were, according to her, very close (boyfriend/girlfriend) from age 12.

Yeah strange alright.

This documentary is confusing me too, why is it always Taj is up for an 'ol interview. It says this documentary is released by the Jackson Family, is it that Taj is somehow in charge of that Jackson Family label now (or Jackson Family estate), the doc only contains 1 niece and 1 nephew from family point of view? Why is that? Or is this just Taj's doc and not necessarily supported by the Jackson family? (i'm probably making no sense haha)

I guess this "documentary" is rushed anyway, but it comes across poorly IMO.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Had it in for Jackson = doing his job and trying to get a conviction?

But he didn't do his job, did he? His job first and foremost was that of the DA, he should have tested the veracity of the allegations against the evidence before deciding on going to trial. As it became glaringly obvious quite fast throughout the trial he did neither of those things.

He put a family of grifters on the stand largely because Jackson made fun of him a song.

Virtually every piece of [Sneddon’s] case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Honestly I'd believe the word of people like Sneddon and others who were actually involved in the case. He was a well respected public official,

Really? I think you need to read a bit more up on Sneddon and how he operated his office, start with Gary Dunlap.

Then you can move on to the 14 year old girl Sneddon's colleague admitted to molesting, Tom bizarrely said he couldn't prosecute citing lack of evidence, which didn't seem too much of a barrier in other cases.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He believed the kids and was trying to do what he was paid to do, nothing more than that.

He didn't believe the kids, their own lawyer didn't believe them according to Larry King.

Sleeper12

It's a shame that they closed the Leaving Neverland thread with the breaking developments. HBO are dropping Leaving Neverland and Oprah deleted her interviews with the alleged "victims" from her YouTube channel, after its been proved that the timescale of the alleged abuse is not possible. HBO didn't fact check the stories closely enough.

ceadaoin.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's a shame that they closed the Leaving Neverland thread with the breaking developments. HBO are dropping Leaving Neverland and Oprah deleted her interviews with the alleged "victims" from her YouTube channel, after its been proved that the timescale of the alleged abuse is not possible. HBO didn't fact check the stories closely enough.

This is more made up nonsense. I can still watch it on demand with HBO, they are also showing it fairly regularly on their various channels.

Also, still on oprahs website

http://www.oprah.com/search.html?q=leaving+neverland

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote:

This is more made up nonsense. I can still watch it on demand with HBO, they are also showing it fairly regularly on their various channels.

I have HBO myself. I didn't say that it was removed. Its been reported that hbo are dropping it this month instead of the planned September and Oprah removed the interview from her YouTube channel.

It's not made-up nonsense. It's a fact that oprah has removed the interviews from her YouTube channel. They are no longer there. That's fact

ceadaoin.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have HBO myself. I didn't say that it was removed. Its been reported that hbo are dropping it this month instead of the planned September and Oprah removed the interview from her YouTube channel.

It's not made-up nonsense. It's a fact that oprah has removed the interviews from her YouTube channel. They are no longer there. That's fact

But they are still on her website. Would they not be removed from there too if it's all lies? Maybe they were sick of the crazy MJ fans on YouTube.

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote:

But they are still on her website. Would they not be removed from there too if it's all lies? Maybe they were sick of the crazy MJ fans on YouTube.

She also deleted all the leaving Neverland tweets. All the ones where she spoke out against Jackson. Gone. Deleted. Fact

ceadaoin.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

She also deleted all the leaving Neverland tweets. All the ones where she spoke out against Jackson. Gone. Deleted. Fact

But she still has the videos up on her website, where they won't be subjected to an onslaught of abuse and brigading by fans of MJ. Makes sense to me. Who wants to deal with all that? it definitely seems to me like Oprah doesn't want to engage with those people because she claims to stand for victims of sexual abuse and reading that stuff can be harmful to them. Maybe she wants to just let the interviews speak for themselves

Don't you think they would be removed from oprah.com if she wanted to distance herself from them?

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote:

But she still has the videos up on her website, where they won't be subjected to an onslaught of abuse and brigading by fans of MJ. Makes sense to me. Who wants to deal with all that? it definitely seems to me like Oprah doesn't want to engage with those people because she claims to stand for victims of sexual abuse and reading that stuff can be harmful to them. Maybe she wants to just let the interviews speak for themselves

I posted something & you jumped down my throat saying that it was made up nonsense. Its a fact that oprah removed all of her tweets where she condemned Jackson. It's a fact that oprah removed the interview from her YouTube channel. It's a fact that the documentary got the dates of the alleged abuse wrong by a few years. None of that is "made up nonsense".

You should check your facts before labeling posts as "made up nonsense".

Some of the alleged abuse couldn't have taken place where it was claimed to have taken place. According to many posters here he always dropped the "victims" once they hit 13 or 14. If abuse took place in some places claimed then he was "abusing" a 16, 17, 18 or nineteen year old young man. This does not fit the MO laid down so carefully by so many posters on this thread. Hasn't everyone claimed that he was only into pre pubescent boys & discarded them once they hit puberty?

Flippyfloppy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I posted something & you jumped down my throat saying that it was made up nonsense. Its a fact that oprah removed all of her tweets where she condemned Jackson. It's a fact that oprah removed the interview from her YouTube channel. It's a fact that the documentary got the dates of the alleged abuse wrong by a few years. None of that is "made up nonsense".

You should check your facts before labeling posts as "made up nonsense".

Some of the alleged abuse couldn't have taken place where it was claimed to have taken place. According to many posters here he always dropped the "victims" once they hit 13 or 14. If abuse took place in some places claimed then he was "abusing" a 16, 17, 18 or nineteen year old young man. This does not fit the MO laid down so carefully by so many posters on this thread. Hasn't everyone claimed that he was only into pre pubescent boys & discarded them once they hit puberty?

Just because planning for the second train track was sought in 93 doesn’t mean Jackson waited until then to build it.

There was a train there in 1990 anyway.

Also hbo aren’t dropping the show.