Interviews with Scott Ross and Charles Thomson. Ross was involved in MJ's 2005 trial and Thomson has been carefully following all legal proceedings concerning MJ since the trial.
ok, real quick, what was the reason he was seen as a poor witness?
There was no story to tell. He had already defended MJ in a 1993 deposition and the defense had much better witnesses. $afechuck's presence simply wasn't required.
ok, real quick, what was the reason he was seen as a poor witness?
There was no story to tell. He had already defended MJ in a 1993 deposition and the defense had much better witnesses. $afechuck's presence simply wasn't required.
ok thanks, see, we need a docu poking those kinds of holes in this shit. i'm glad the oprah part ddin't get good ratings, she thought she was gonna get more shine off my boy. Yesterday i rewatched her interviews with MJ's mom, kids and lisa marie, god, how can she be so fucking phoney, it's not like she needs the money, she's just a narcissist.
There was no story to tell. He had already defended MJ in a 1993 deposition and the defense had much better witnesses. $afechuck's presence simply wasn't required.
ok thanks, see, we need a docu poking those kinds of holes in this shit. i'm glad the oprah part ddin't get good ratings, she thought she was gonna get more shine off my boy. Yesterday i rewatched her interviews with MJ's mom, kids and lisa marie, god, how can she be so fucking phoney, it's not like she needs the money, she's just a narcissist.
Yeah. Oprah. Where did that Weinstein documentary go? From Sundance Film Festival to... ?
I watched the Oprah interview, but I didn't watch the HBO documentary, however it seems that many did, based upon the comments I read elsewhere, and it seems that many believe the accusers and also think that Michael Jackson was indeed a pedophile, and didn't hold back from saying so.
I am not sure why kind of "proof" is wanted short of an eye witness of the sexual abuse which is always done in private (didn't a maid say she saw him showering with a kid in the trial?). It's not like there was proof 25 years later when children who were abused by priests had proof of abuse - you either believed them or not. one mother came upon them in bed - but the door was locked and when she finally saw them they were fully dressed and so it did ot occur to her anything was oging on. Why was the door locked?
These guys (and others) say it happened to them - some will believe them and some won't. One was a shady adult? Perhaps he became so because as a 7-year old child he was sexually abused nd as such lived his childhood and his early adult life holding inside a horrible truth. Nt making excuses for him or his choices - but what kind of person he is as an adult could correlate to what happened to him as a kid. (see Charles Manson)
Despite of who or what each of us believes, the child abuse discussion is important.
Well this is it isn't it? If can't have proof you look at how credible they are. Their stories have problems, their credibility has been pretty strongly questioned. You heard one side of the story and believed it apparently, good for you.
Having said all that, I watched the whole doc and even knowing their credibility problems I find it very hard to call them liars. Maybe they are but my mind is a hung jury right now. If you have made up your mind fair enough, i'm not too bothered, Michael Jackson is dead and can't be punished and most of the writing about this documentary has been in favour of it so you're in good company.
[Edited 3/6/19 15:37pm]
Well - the dicsussion here is less about child abuse and more about defending MJ and bashing anyone who ever accused him of wrong doing: "the kids and their families lied and MJ told the truth" Despite their "credibility" these two men are acting in step with how adults act who were abused as children.
Good for me? I've heard MJ's side on video and in print - and I bleieved him and was happy he was acquitted in 94. But this is 2019 and these two men who once denied being abused as children (when they had no concept of what abuse actually is and were in love wiht MJ) and one who continued to deny it in a court of law... are now, after nervous breakdowns, admitting that they were in fact abused. They are both as compelling as MJ was when he defended himself. I am finding that there is reasonable doubt to believe it happened., that's all.
IMO, Safecheck is more believable to me than Robson is, none the less...
He settled in 1994, Bashir was 2003. I never said it was ok, you said no one knew about it before the trial I pointed that that people knew about it before the trial.
Sorry - my questons were not directed at you
Bashir doc 2004.
People v. Jackson was a 2004–2005 criminal trial held in Santa Barbara County Superior Court
I am not sure I knew he continued this practice of sleeping with children until Bashir (which spans the time Robson and Safecheck claim). You could argue he was getting away with it in plain sight - the first abuse claim was squelched 1993 when he settled out of court, until the next public claim went to trial and much more was revealed including the continued practice of sleeping with kids.
The whole thing is bizarre. He was a huge international star, possessing a popularity the likes of which was unparralleled - we have not seen anything like it since.
There is no proof that MJ continued to sleep with kids after the 1st allegation. The 2nd kid said on the Bashire interview that he and MJ had an "argument" about who would sleep in the bed and who would sleep on the floor. There was a book written after MJ's death where one of his good friends said that MJ was never alone with the 2nd kid. In fact this person said that when the 2nd kid (Gavin - I think) was sleeping in MJ's room, that MJ asked him to stay with in the room with them. If I'm not mistaken, there was testamony to this effect during the trial.
bonatoc said: It’s very likely he had sex and with more than his first wife. It’s really not our business to know more than that though
I would say it's the entire society's business to know more, if he ever brushed even just one underaged child. Not saying that he actually did, but the settlings out of court have always disturbed me in this particular matter.
He eventually relented to settling, because, at that time, California's laws didn't allow for the criminal trial to precede the civil lawsuit. Michael wanted to see the entire process through in court, rather than give them any money. Even following a settlement, the accuser would still be allowed to testify in a criminal case, but he, along with his defense, knew all along that once his insurance company paid them, no one would proceed any further. His business advisors (only really looking out for his brand), convinced him that it is just better to give them what they want, avoiding a long-drawn out suit, and go on with creating music and furthering his career.
If a crime happened and it can be proven, there should not be a statute of limitations. A judge should decide whether evidence is strong enough to allow a trial.
Yeah, this. Personally I'd like to see child abusers brought to justice, regardless of the time that's elapsed, as long as there is evidence.
There is rarely any direct evidence of a molestation. The only thing that may be proof years after the fact is if a victim has medical records showing that they went to psychiatrists and/or therapists around the time of the molestation. Or maybe they can show that grades began to drop, or family and friends can say that they noticed a change in the person around the time of hte alleged molestation. Even this kind of evidence can easily not be enough, because a good defense lawyer can point to other events going on in the kid's life to try and show that those other reasons were the cause of the mental decline of the victim. Anyway, removing the statue of limitations can have unintended consequences.
Corey Feldman could be prosecuted by Robson and Safeschiuck for diffamation, since he clearly implied they were lyers, did only that for the money and hope nevertheless they could sleep well. . The reason why Feldman don't say who his milestones were is because he would get sued.
Corey Feldman could be prosecuted by Robson and Safeschiuck for diffamation, since he clearly implied they were lyers, did only that for the money and hope nevertheless they could sleep well. . The reason why Feldman don't say who his milestones were is because he would get sued.
my opinion was he feared being blackballed but he doesn't have much of a career anyways. And let me make my position straight, I love MJ, even if the shit is true, I love him just like I'd still love a family member if they did the shit. Some of us fans ain't going nowhere and I'm glad as fuck that oprah's little ploy is backfiring, people are "cancelling" her, not mike, fuck oprah.
Corey Feldman could be prosecuted by Robson and Safeschiuck for diffamation, since he clearly implied they were lyers, did only that for the money and hope nevertheless they could sleep well. . The reason why Feldman don't say who his milestones were is because he would get sued.
my opinion was he feared being blackballed but he doesn't have much of a career anyways. And let me make my position straight, I love MJ, even if the shit is true, I love him just like I'd still love a family member if they did the shit. Some of us fans ain't going nowhere and I'm glad as fuck that oprah's little ploy is backfiring, people are "cancelling" her, not mike, fuck oprah.
So if you had kids and a family member abused them, you'd still love that family member?
my opinion was he feared being blackballed but he doesn't have much of a career anyways. And let me make my position straight, I love MJ, even if the shit is true, I love him just like I'd still love a family member if they did the shit. Some of us fans ain't going nowhere and I'm glad as fuck that oprah's little ploy is backfiring, people are "cancelling" her, not mike, fuck oprah.
So if you had kids and a family member abused them, you'd still love that family member?
what? i wouldn't leave them alone in the first place, i don't trust noone but god, i certainly wouldn't leave them with Mike or anyone else. I grew up hard though, i know how vulnerable kids are, i'm ok but i don't trust humans.
Not related to the MJ case - but this is interesting. Even after his conviction people still claim Cardinal Pell is innocent; the victim of a conspiracy.
Donald Trump was probably right - he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. For some people their idols can do no wrong.
Well - the dicsussion here is less about child abuse and more about defending MJ and bashing anyone who ever accused him of wrong doing: "the kids and their families lied and MJ told the truth" Despite their "credibility" these two men are acting in step with how adults act who were abused as children.
Good for me? I've heard MJ's side on video and in print - and I bleieved him and was happy he was acquitted in 94. But this is 2019 and these two men who once denied being abused as children (when they had no concept of what abuse actually is and were in love wiht MJ) and one who continued to deny it in a court of law... are now, after nervous breakdowns, admitting that they were in fact abused. They are both as compelling as MJ was when he defended himself. I am finding that there is reasonable doubt to believe it happened., that's all.
IMO, Safecheck is more believable to me than Robson is, none the less..
What? He was aquitted in 2005, there was no trial in 1994.
Otherwise it seems we're more or less on the same page.
Not related to the MJ case - but this is interesting. Even after his conviction people still claim Cardinal Pell is innocent; the victim of a conspiracy.
Donald Trump was probably right - he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him. For some people their idols can do no wrong.
I was thinking about that case earlier actually, correct me if i'm wrong but it seems that Pell wasn't a serial abuser and the two victims are his only victims. I read a bit of the case it seems he acted out of character, possibly out of pure power, when he abused them. Obviously the case was made compellingly enough for it to stick.
Similarly it's perfectly possible that MJ didn't abuse any other children, was rightly found innocent in court, but did abuse Safechuck and Robson, and they are actually aberrations to his otherwise clean record. I don't know how we'd know for sure either way though.
Thompson appears to be using this to boost his own career, sell his own books. Doubtless the money will come in handy. He seems very keen to point out that the recent lawsuits failed, but somehow his journalistic integrity fails to mention why - no ruling was made on the allegations, it was simply ruled that the Jackson estate could not be held responsible for any alleged allegations i.e. there was no-one to sue, even if the allegations were truthful.
Why does he not mention this, since he proclaims to be all about full disclosure? Perhaps because it doesn't help sell his story. Makes you wonder about all the other stuff he wrote - what is he not telling us, that wouldn't support his story? Are all his claims full and factual?
Thompson appears to be using this to boost his own career, sell his own books. Doubtless the money will come in handy. He seems very keen to point out that the recent lawsuits failed, but somehow his journalistic integrity fails to mention why - no ruling was made on the allegations, it was simply ruled that the Jackson estate could not be held responsible for any alleged allegations i.e. there was no-one to sue, even if the allegations were truthful.
Why does he not mention this, since he proclaims to be all about full disclosure? Perhaps because it doesn't help sell his story. Makes you wonder about all the other stuff he wrote - what is he not telling us, that wouldn't support his story? Are all his claims full and factual?
It's true that that ruling by the judge is being ignored by too many fans but also it is my understanding that the judge threw out Robson's testimony as well, stating that Robson could not be considered credible.
Thompson appears to be using this to boost his own career, sell his own books. Doubtless the money will come in handy. He seems very keen to point out that the recent lawsuits failed, but somehow his journalistic integrity fails to mention why - no ruling was made on the allegations, it was simply ruled that the Jackson estate could not be held responsible for any alleged allegations i.e. there was no-one to sue, even if the allegations were truthful.
Why does he not mention this, since he proclaims to be all about full disclosure? Perhaps because it doesn't help sell his story. Makes you wonder about all the other stuff he wrote - what is he not telling us, that wouldn't support his story? Are all his claims full and factual?
Watching the documentary made me sick to my stomach. And here was MJ singing “Heal the world, make it a better place” when he was abusing these kids not once but repeatedly over a number of years. [Edited 3/7/19 2:11am]
Thompson appears to be using this to boost his own career, sell his own books. Doubtless the money will come in handy. He seems very keen to point out that the recent lawsuits failed, but somehow his journalistic integrity fails to mention why - no ruling was made on the allegations, it was simply ruled that the Jackson estate could not be held responsible for any alleged allegations i.e. there was no-one to sue, even if the allegations were truthful.
Why does he not mention this, since he proclaims to be all about full disclosure? Perhaps because it doesn't help sell his story. Makes you wonder about all the other stuff he wrote - what is he not telling us, that wouldn't support his story? Are all his claims full and factual?
It's true that that ruling by the judge is being ignored by too many fans but also it is my understanding that the judge threw out Robson's testimony as well, stating that Robson could not be considered credible.
But which part of the testimony caused that? The abuse allegations, the evidence about his attempted book deals, some other evidence? Thompson fails to give specifics, even though he claims to know all the details - which makes me wonder why? Was it something completely unrelated to the abuse allegations.
Robson's initial lawsuit was dismissed for being filed too late. Thompson doesn't mention that.
Thompson states that Safechuck 'joined the lawsuit' but as far as I can tell, Safechuck filed a separate lawsuit. Again, if that is correct, then Thompson should ensure he is more accurate with his journalistic statements or he risks losing credibility.
Thompson appears to be using this to boost his own career, sell his own books. Doubtless the money will come in handy. He seems very keen to point out that the recent lawsuits failed, but somehow his journalistic integrity fails to mention why - no ruling was made on the allegations, it was simply ruled that the Jackson estate could not be held responsible for any alleged allegations i.e. there was no-one to sue, even if the allegations were truthful.
Why does he not mention this, since he proclaims to be all about full disclosure? Perhaps because it doesn't help sell his story. Makes you wonder about all the other stuff he wrote - what is he not telling us, that wouldn't support his story? Are all his claims full and factual?
Thanks - I've e-mailed him with a specific question regarding Safechuck's lawsuit testimony. If he replies I may ask further questions. I'll keep everyone informed.
Corey Feldman could be prosecuted by Robson and Safeschiuck for diffamation, since he clearly implied they were lyers, did only that for the money and hope nevertheless they could sleep well. . The reason why Feldman don't say who his milestones were is because he would get sued.
my opinion was he feared being blackballed but he doesn't have much of a career anyways. And let me make my position straight, I love MJ, even if the shit is true, I love him just like I'd still love a family member if they did the shit. Some of us fans ain't going nowhere and I'm glad as fuck that oprah's little ploy is backfiring, people are "cancelling" her, not mike, fuck oprah.
What does that mean "people are cancelling Oprah not MJ"? Radios and TV all over the world bans MJ, and around me colleagues and friends all believe MJ was guilty.
It's true that that ruling by the judge is being ignored by too many fans but also it is my understanding that the judge threw out Robson's testimony as well, stating that Robson could not be considered credible.
But which part of the testimony caused that? The abuse allegations, the evidence about his attempted book deals, some other evidence? Thompson fails to give specifics, even though he claims to know all the details - which makes me wonder why? Was it something completely unrelated to the abuse allegations.
Robson's initial lawsuit was dismissed for being filed too late. Thompson doesn't mention that.
Thompson states that Safechuck 'joined the lawsuit' but as far as I can tell, Safechuck filed a separate lawsuit. Again, if that is correct, then Thompson should ensure he is more accurate with his journalistic statements or he risks losing credibility.
Right, yeah, good questions, I don't actually know. Does anyone on here know? Fill me in.
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
