Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I posted it twice. :pac:

I have a feeling you are the sort that believe that all men are guilty of something, even if they haven't been accused.

Good luck with that, I have no interest in engaging anymore.

And do you usually make a habit out of defending grown men sleeping in the same bed as little boys? I’ve a feeling you do....
If you looked though my posting history I’m sure you’ll find I’m actually more than fair and objective in my views, but can’t say I really give a crap about what your opinion is. Also I take it you’ve no proof the other allegations are false? :pac: :pac:
All the best

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

And do you usually make a habit out of defending grown men sleeping in the same bed as little boys?

Nobody on here of sound mind has defended it. But you know that all ready, it's been pointed out to you enough.

retro:electro wrote: »

If you looked though my posting history

Fook no. Your present posting is challenging enough.

Potential-Monke

retro:electro wrote: »

Yes but usually you have to prove an allegation was false in order to confidently state it as such.

Unfortunately, you are correct, that you need to prove your innocence outside of court. In court, you just need to prove it's not true beyond reasonable doubt. It's why I personally think suspects in sexual assault cases shouldn't be named until prosecuted.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Fook no. Your present posting is challenging enough.

I thought you had ran away cos you had no proof? Is this the long goodbye? Bye now :rolleyes:

Boggles

Potential-Monke wrote: »

but from what I can recall he wouldn't have been mentally sound to be able to defend himself/give evidence.

Very hard to give evidence yourself when your dead all right. :pac:

Allegations were made in 2012.

Forbes had an timeline that does explain somethings.

Wade Robson when Jackson died.

Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

That's that so.

Until.

In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”

That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

retro:electro

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Unfortunately, you are correct, that you need to prove your innocence outside of court. In court, you just need to prove it's not true beyond reasonable doubt. It's why I personally think suspects in sexual assault cases shouldn't be named until prosecuted.

Completely agree on the bit in bold.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Very hard to give evidence yourself when your dead all right. :pac:

Allegations were made in 2012.

Forbes had an timeline that does explain somethings.

Wade Robson when Jackson died.



That's that so.

Until.

It's been explained to you numerous times why a victim might say they weren't abused. Wade himself also explained it. I'm guessing if you watch the documentary he might explain it some more. Somehow I doubt there is any amount of explaining that will be satisfactory for you. There's a lot of people who seem to think this documentary is convincing, even previous Jackson defenders. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Boggles

joeguevara wrote: »

Now if there is corroborating evidence fair play but if not I think it is unjust

No. The film maker did not approach anybody for interview to counter balance or fact check, the interviews are just of the 2 accusers and their families.

Their families stated multiple times they had no idea any abuse happened, as did the 2 accusers.

gozunda

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's been explained to you numerous times why a victim might say they weren't abused. Wade himself also explained it. I'm guessing if you watch the documentary he might explain it some more. Somehow I doubt there is any amount of explaining that will be satisfactory for you. There's a lot of people who seem to think this documentary is convincing, even previous Jackson defenders. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

The expert speaks. Conspiracy theorists eh? .;)

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's been explained to you numerous times why a victim might say they weren't abused. Wade himself also explained it.

You mean he didn't realize until he was 30 that anally raping a child was wrong? :pac:

Just so happened that it coincided with him being fooked off at the Jacksons, being broke and the wife about to leave him.

$$$$$$$

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

You mean he didn't realize until he was 30 that anally raping a child was wrong? :pac:

Just so happened that it coincided with him being fooked off at the Jacksons, being broke and the wife about to leave him.

$$$$$$$

Yes, It's possible to not think it was rape because of grooming

From an interview with the director.

Michael was Wade’s lover and his close friend, to whom he owed a great deal in terms of his career and his life. As he says in the film, there was absolutely no way on Earth that he was going to say anything that might put Michael in jail. Period. And that’s a big point that the film builds up to over three hours to make you understand what happened there and why he then changed his story.

Yeah. And that’s why Wade says, “I didn’t consider this to be abuse. I loved Michael and Michael loved me.” That persisted for many years, because that was embedded in his psyche when he was seven. And when we’re that age, we’re so malleable and we form our ideas of normality, right? So, for them, this was a normal, healthy thing. And it’s not until many years later — this is so typical of child sexual abuse — that that structure falls apart and they can no longer hold it together.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, It's possible to not think it was rape because of grooming

A lot of things are possible.

Probable? no.

Outlaw Pete

The maid was on 60 Minutes Australia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yp91zKBGgY

ceadaoin.

I've just watched the first part of this new documentary. It reminds me very much of the "Abducted in Plain Sight" one. The way he groomed the whole family, and seemed to seek to drive a wedge between them also. Very disturbing stuff.

If they are both lying, and Safechuck in particular, it's an Oscar winning performance. I don't know how people continue to defend Jackson when the truth of what he was is there for all to see.

8-10

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know how people continue to defend Jackson when the truth of what he was is there for all to see.

People defend him because the only 2 times he went to court was because of fabricated stories to get money.

It's a weird situation where if there are real victims it's harder for people to believe because of the high profile fake victims.

I haven't watched the documentary yet and I've been very sceptical of Wade Robson in the past. But I'll give it a watch in the next week. You can only judge with the information you have

Galwayguy35

If someone accused me of being a nonce I'd spend every penny I had proving my innocence, Jackson gave the very first kid $20 million in hush money.

He was a weirdo with a sick fascination about kids.

TomSweeney

F*cked up stuff, and I used to defend the guy, really thought it was all bullsh1t.

Adamocovic

Louis Theroux on the heels of his new (and somewhat controversial) documentary about sexually assault gives his opinion on the the Michael Jackson accusations.

8-10

Adamocovic wrote: »

Louis Theroux on the heels of his new (and somewhat controversial) documentary about sexually assault gives his opinion on the the Michael Jackson accusations.

Big fan of Louis, recorded his show last night and look forward to it. "The Hunting Ground" is another good documentary on a similar subject if you haven't seen it, mentions the behaviour of Tampa Bay quarterback Jameis Winston in his college days, a player who is loved by fans nowadays.

I like Louis' quote in that clip around how we should hold people to a higher standard than just "not criminal"

Maybe I've been guilty of that a little in not believing the Michael Jackson allegations because he wasn't found guilty. But I do believe that it's a bit different than the R Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, Jimmy Savile type cases.

What sticks with me isn't a view that "MJ was not convicted so that = him not doing anything". It's that he was not convicted in cases where the accusers were clearly lying.

So the question is if Wade Robson has closeted these feelings for so long or if he is using an opportunity for himself. Is Brett Barnes in this documentary out of interest? I've read through Robson and Barnes' testimonies from 2005 so I'd be interested to know his perspective as he would have been around at the same time and likely witnessed everything Wade did.

retro:electro

Louis has spend enough time around paedos and groomers to be aware of their methodology and seems to know what stinks. “Paying $23million dollars to your accuser doesn’t pass the smell test”.
Bang on.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

Louis has spend enough time around paedos and groomers to be aware of their methodology and seems to know what stinks. “Paying $23million dollars to your accuser doesn’t pass the smell test”.
Bang on.

Same Louis was good friends with Jimmy Savile in fairness and smelt nothing, watch his documentary on him.

In 1993 he was put into a corner though because they filed the civil suit before any criminal charges. They refused to say if they would move on criminal charges after the civil case so it kind of forced his hand because if he beat the civil case they could change the accusations to fit around his defence in the criminal one.

The fact that no criminal case was filed after the civil one was settled is telling I think. Louis is missing a lot of context with one remark. It's general convention to file criminal charges and then pursue compensation after a conviction, not the other way around!

Are you saying that you think something happened with Jordy Chandler?

Outlaw Pete

Jordy Chandler's parent's behaviour doesn't pass the smell test either.

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

Same Louis was good friends with Jimmy Savile in fairness and smelt nothing, watch his documentary on him

I’ve seen it, who hasn’t? And I think that documentary did all it could do at the time. It asks the pertinent questions, he just lies and gives evasive answers. I definitely think it’s not a flattering portrayal of Saville and sure i watched it with the benefit of hindsight, but it does leave you with the sense that all is not quite right there. Louis has since stated that he feels he himself was groomed by Saville. Again, it’s not up to Louis to expose anyone. He’s limited in what he can do without landing himself with a lawsuit. I think in that documentary he manages to get the ball rolling and people talking without doing much prodding and poking.

Are you saying that you think something happened with Jordy Chandler?

I’m saying I believe Jackson was a serial predator, groomer and molester and I believe all of his victims. You can believe what you like.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Jordy Chandler's parent's behaviour doesn't pass the smell test either.

TBF, the money he got from his grifter parents actions probably saved his life.

God knows how many times his father tried to kill him.

mcmoustache

It's quite possible that a man who brought children who weren't his own into bed with him molested them while at the same time the parents who allowed him to take their kids to bed with him were shítty people and even opportunists. I'd even go so far that it takes a certain kind of parent send their kid to a sleepover with MJ.

But none of that changes the fact that he brought them to bed.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

But none of that changes the fact that he brought them to bed.

I don't think anyone would argue the fact that MJ was a bit of an oddball, it's the claims that how he behaved proves that he molested kids which people take issue with.

The guy for sure saw himself as something of a Jesus figure and was obsessed with remaining child like as a result, citing passages from the bible to support him wanting to do so. He spoke of it many times in interviews. Here's just one of those and during an interrogation regarding molestation claims as it happens:

retro:electro

That video is so creepy. He laughs the whole way through serious allegations of interference with young kids and and treats it all as a big joke. Freak.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

I believe all of his victims

Which ones?

8-10

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'd even go so far that it takes a certain kind of parent send their kid to a sleepover with MJ.

Yeah you really really have to think what their motivation might have been....

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The guy for sure saw himself as something of a Jesus figure and was obsessed with remaining child like as a result, citing passages from the bible to support him wanting to do so. He spoke of it many times in interviews. Here's just one of those and during an integration regarding molestation claims as it happens:

I wasn't aware of the Jesus stuff but I can already think of quite a few people over the years with a messianic complex who have been very rapey.

Not to say that a messianic complex supports the idea that he molested people - just that it isn't really a something that would make bringing children into his bed appear innocent.

mcmoustache

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah you really really have to think what their motivation might have been....

I'm not defending the parents at all here.

They allowed their kids to go to bed with a grown man. If I was just a little more cynical, I could believe that some may even have been whoring out their kids with the expectation of some cash.

I mean, would anyone here with kids let their kids sleep in the bed of grown man? Would the man's wealth and fame come into your decision making process?

8-10

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm not defending the parents at all here.

They allowed their kids to go to bed with a grown man. If I was just a little more cynical, I could believe that some may even have been whoring out their kids with the expectation of some cash.

I firmly believe, in the cases of Chandler and Arviso, that the parents involved were knowingly allowing their kids into a vunerable position to extort cash. The evidence supports that.

I'm not sure however, that they believed anything was actually going on. The fact that you have to drug your own kid with sodium pentathol to get him to 'admit' something is suspicious as hell, it's known to make you loquacious, highly suggestible and easily led.

mcmoustache

8-10 wrote: »

I firmly believe, in the cases of Chandler and Arviso, that the parents involved were knowingly allowing their kids into a vunerable position to extort cash. The evidence supports that.

I'm not sure however, that they believed anything was actually going on. The fact that you have to drug your own kid with sodium pentathol to get him to 'admit' something is suspicious as hell, it's known to make you loquacious, highly suggestible and easily led.

I don't disagree with anything you said there.

But I still haven't heard anything that would convince me that there is an innocent explanation for bringing children into his bed and his self identification as Jesus or Peter Pan just isn't enough.

Galwayguy35

8-10 wrote: »

I firmly believe, in the cases of Chandler and Arviso, that the parents involved were knowingly allowing their kids into a vunerable position to extort cash. The evidence supports that.

I'm not sure however, that they believed anything was actually going on. The fact that you have to drug your own kid with sodium pentathol to get him to 'admit' something is suspicious as hell, it's known to make you loquacious, highly suggestible and easily led.

So do you believe Jackson is innocent and his accusers are lying?

8-10

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So do you believe Jackson is innocent and his accusers are lying?

I believe Chandler and Arviso were lying, yes. I actually think there's no real question that they were. I also believe Wade Robson is lying, although I will caveat I haven't seen the contents of the documentary. I do not have enough information on the other accuser to comment.

I'm not for one minute excusing the extremely inappropriate behaviour of sharing a bedroom with these kids, nor am I saying that them lying means he's innocent of other crimes

But I certainly think that the 1993 and 2005 cases were built on fabricated stories and I think that makes it harder to believe others, which is unfortunate, but to me it looks as though Wade Robson is looking to profit off the latest accusations and there is enough in what I know so far to make me suspicious.

Do you believe Chandler and Arviso were both completely truthful?

mcmoustache

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So do you believe Jackson is innocent and his accusers are lying?

It's actually likely that some of them are and that some others were exaggerating.

Any parent who lets their kids sleep with a grown man has some questions to answer. I would be interested in knowing if they were being given money/payment to let MJ sleep with their kids.

If they were being paid, it may well be that some of them changed their mind about the molestation after the payments stopped.

This is speculation of course but I just find it hard to get my head around why a parent would lend their kid to a grownup for the purposes of sleeping with them. And if money was involved, then the situation looks much, much worse.

Galwayguy35

8-10 wrote: »

I believe Chandler and Arviso were lying, yes. I actually think there's no real question that they were. I also believe Wade Robson is lying, although I will caveat I haven't seen the contents of the documentary. I do not have enough information on the other accuser to comment.

I'm not for one minute excusing the extremely inappropriate behaviour of sharing a bedroom with these kids, nor am I saying that them lying means he's innocent of other crimes

But I certainly think that the 1993 and 2005 cases were built on fabricated stories and I think that makes it harder to believe others, which is unfortunate, but to me it looks as though Wade Robson is looking to profit off the latest accusations and there is enough in what I know so far to make me suspicious.

Do you believe Chandler and Arviso were both completely truthful?

TBH I thought Arviso was in it for the money but I don't believe all the boys who made accusations against him are lying.

It's just not normal for a grown man to share a bed with kids who were staying with him in the house.

Unfortunately he can't be made to answer for what may have gone on now that he's dead.

Galwayguy35

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's actually likely that some of them are and that some others were exaggerating.

Any parent who lets their kids sleep with a grown man has some questions to answer. I would be interested in knowing if they were being given money/payment to let MJ sleep with their kids.

If they were being paid, it may well be that some of them changed their mind about the molestation after the payments stopped.

This is speculation of course but I just find it hard to get my head around why a parent would lend their kid to a grownup for the purposes of sleeping with them. And if money was involved, then the situation looks much, much worse.

But did the parents know that he was sleeping in the same bed at their kids at the time?

ceadaoin.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

But did the parents know that he was sleeping in the same bed at their kids at the time?

Well at least the ones in the documentary did. One of the mothers resisted allowing it for some time but eventually allowed it after starting to see Michael as her son. The other one, robsons mother, left her son in Michael's sole care days after meeting him and went off to the grand canyon for a few days! Couldn't believe when I heard she did that

mcmoustache

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

But did the parents know that he was sleeping in the same bed at their kids at the time?

I'm still learning about all this but this article from The Atlantic ("What about the parents") has some information on it.

The rules were suspended. So when Jackson invited Robson and his older sister, Chantal, to sleep in his quarters, Joy says she didn’t think much of it. Nor when Jackson offered to let Robson stay with him for a week while the Robson family visited the Grand Canyon.

Even so, on their first vacation with Jackson, Stephanie nixed James’s request to sleep in the star’s room. But gradually, with Jackson bringing Safechuck on tour, the arrangement changed. “It seems like it was a natural thing that happened,” Stephanie says. “My husband and I had to have said, ‘Yes, you can sleep with Michael.’” But she doesn’t recall the moment when that would have been.

8-10

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Unfortunately he can't be made to answer for what may have gone on now that he's dead.

He also can't be sued because he's dead. However his companies can, which is why Wade Robson's accusations aren't that MJ abused him, it's that his companies were responsible for the abuse.

He's suing MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions for being "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known" and claiming that Norma Staikos, Jackson's PA, was his pimp or "madame" responsible for procuring children.

I'm not sure how much detail the documentary goes into his depositions and accusations against his companies, but it is interesting that his story is specifically aimed at portraying the companies as being the ones responsible and essentially accusing them of systematic child sex trafficking - which is where compensation would come from - rather than just accusing MJ of abuse which wouldn't allow him any compensation but would be just to get the truth out there.

I'm going to watch it this weekend I hope but very interested to hear his specific evidence that Staikos was the one who procured him, it's a pretty serious accusation to make about somebody and if she did knowingly recruit him for that purpose she should go to jail for the rest of her life. I presume she will be deposed at some stage if not already

Rubberchikken

its in no way normal for an adult to share a bed with a child that isnt their own.
at the same time i really believe that there are parents out there who would hand over their kids to anyone just so that they can find fame, either the kid through work or the parents through connections.

kids cant make the decision to stay with adults, famous or not, so the parents have to be held respobsible also.

this abuse if kids with famous men seems to be particularly common in art areas where fame is seen to be more important than safety.

storker

8-10 wrote: »

"the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known"

That's a shocking claim. Hasn't he ever heard of the Catholic Church?

Boggles

The Jackson estate is suing HBO.

The 2 lads in the doc will probably have to re tell parts of their story under oath without unlimited takes.

When Robson was made do this under the original deposition, he couldn't get half a story straight.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

When Robson was made do this under the original deposition, he couldn't get half a story straight.

Doesn't that just tend to indicate that he wasn't being entirely truthful when he was defending Jackson?

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

The Jackson estate is suing HBO.

The 2 lads in the doc will probably have to re tell parts of their story under oath without unlimited takes.

When Robson was made do this under the original deposition, he couldn't get half a story straight.

Have you seen the documentary? They definitely don't come across as liars, especially Safechuck. It was clearly very hard for him to talk about this in parts. So I guess they are both not only liars who have really done their research about how grooming works and how abusers operate, but amazing actors too?

Boggles

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Doesn't that just tend to indicate that he wasn't being entirely truthful when he was defending Jackson?

I'm not talking about the 2005 court case, he was flawless. He was called as the defenses first witness.

Robson couldn't get his story straight in 2013/14 when he was suing the Jackson estate.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Have you seen the documentary? They definitely don't come across as liars, especially Safechuck. It was clearly very hard for him to talk about this in parts. So I guess they are both not only liars who have really done their research about how grooming works and how abusers operate, but amazing actors too?

I have absolutely no doubt both are very compelling and believable.

That doesn't mean they are telling the truth though.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

I have absolutely no doubt both are very compelling and believable.

That doesn't mean they are telling the truth though.

Well on the balance of facts, I think it is pretty clear what actually happened.

On the one side we have a man who supposedly loved all children, but had intense friendships with ONLY boys that ended soon after the boys reached puberty when they were replaced with another. Whose home was designed to be appealing to children.Who slept in beds alone with these boys. Who was inappropriately tactile with them, as many photos show. Who lavished the boys and their families with money and gifts. Who had porn openly lying around in areas frequented by children. Who has been accused by several boys of abuse and paid them off.(And I could add even more to that list)

And the other side - the man happens to have been rich and famous so they must be lying.

Doesn't really cut it for me to excuse all the other evidence.

8-10

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So I guess they are both not only liars who have really done their research about how grooming works and how abusers operate

Just on this snippet, to be clear Wade Robson admitted before filing the lawsuit that he had done extensive research into other child abuse cases and was certainly well read on the subject. That part isn't in dispute at all.

On whether he's a good actor, that's a different story. We may never know the answer to that.