Micky Jackson in trouble again

8-10

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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

No, you're being a bit disingenuous there with that statement. Nobody's saying that "they must be lying" because "the man happens to be rich and famous"

There are huge holes in the Chandler and Arviso stories and I don't think either are credible. The circumstances of how they came to accuse him, the actions of the parents and what has happened since to both kids, particularly Jordy, are the reasons they are lying and we can debate them in more detail

It's unfair to the other side of the argument to state that it's simply based on his wealth, in fact one of the prosecution's arguments in 2005 was surrounding his bankruptcy.

Either you don't understand the opposing argument properly or you're wilfully ignoring it and attacking it by reducing to a simple statement around his wealth. There's much much more compelling evidence supporting their being lying

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

But that's not the facts, it's not even close.

At best that is a very narrow (less than accurate) one sided closing argument.

Boggles

8-10 wrote: »

Big fan of Louis, recorded his show last night and look forward to it.

/offtopic

I watched everything Louis has done.

Last nights wasn't great though.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

But that's not the facts, it's not even close.

At best that is a very narrow (less than accurate) one sided closing argument.

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.

Which of those things is not a fact? Each one of those on its own is questionable behaviour. Together? It's the behaviour of a pedophile

Boggles

Who had porn openly lying around in areas frequented by children.

He didn't, this came out in the trial and is one of the reasons the jury thought the family were pure and simple grifters.

nappropriately tactile with them

No idea what this means, which photo's show this?

marklazarcovic

If it wasn't MJ and wasn't a celebrity and people got told of this man who built a house ,filled it with kids toys and even a huge playground for kids,and had a recurring theme of befriending very young boys ,their parents, eventually getting the parents to allow these very young boys to stay overnight with this MAN ,and the man admits to having them in his bed overnight, well people would be right in thinking this is textbook grooming by a pedophile.

He kept moving on to other boys as soon as he was done with one,or they became too old for his targeted age range.

That and all the secrecy and staff stories of goings on there and the payoff lead me to only one conclusion,and did years ago.

It's textbook.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't, this came out in the trial and is one of the reasons the jury thought the family were pure and simple grifters.



No idea what this means, which photo's show this?

Oh so you mean the police didn't find pornographic material in areas accessible to children? I think they did

You know, tactile, "touchy feely". I don't think it needs explaining that it's inappropriate for a grown man to have arms tightly around a child, or draped over them, hands placed on a young boys thigh, to be constantly holding hands with them, having boys sitting in his lap etc. There are numerous photos showing these scenarios. Here is just one.

But sure it's all innocent, probably just an accident etc. There is nothing that will convince you so good luck

showpony1

marklazarcovic wrote: »

If it wasn't MJ and wasn't a celebrity and people got told of this man who built a house ,filled it with kids toys and even a huge playground for kids,and had a recurring theme of befriending very young boys ,their parents, eventually getting the parents to allow these very young boys to stay overnight with this MAN ,and the man admits to having them in his bed overnight, well people would be right in thinking this is textbook grooming by a pedophile.

He kept moving on to other boys as soon as he was done with one,or they became too old for his targeted age range.

That and all the secrecy and staff stories of goings on there and the payoff lead me to only one conclusion,and did years ago.

It's textbook.

I preferred the several other times in the thread this spiel was given where they give the guy a name like "Mick" or "Paddy" down the end of the road to make it more relatable.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There is nothing that will convince you so good luck

Of course there is, carefully considered evidence.

It's been done to death on this thread.

So I suppose good luck to you too.

mcmoustache

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't, this came out in the trial and is one of the reasons the jury thought the family were pure and simple grifters.

Unless I'm missing something, it does seem as though he had porn where at a minimum, the kids were able to get at it.

According to a CNN report from 2005...

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Fingerprints from both Michael Jackson and his accuser were recovered from the same sexually explicit magazine found at the pop star's Neverland ranch, a fingerprint analyst testified Friday in the pop star's child molestation trial.

Sgt. Robert Spinner of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department said the prints were found on a magazine titled "Hustler Barely Legal Hardcore." However, Jackson's prints and those of his accuser were found on different pages of the magazine, he said.

In all, 12 prints from Jackson were found on eight different magazines; five prints from his accuser were found on three magazines; and two prints from the accuser's younger brother were found on a single magazine, Spinner said.

Spinner also testified in the Santa Maria, California, courtroom on the reliability of the print comparisons, saying that for the prints that were matched, at least 12 common points were found, and most had nearly 20 common points.

The magazines were seized from Jackson's Neverland ranch in a raid on November 18, 2003. Prosecutors are trying to use fingerprint evidence to buttress the boys' testimony earlier in the trial that Jackson showed them adult material while they were overnight guests in his bedroom.

professore

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh so you mean the police didn't find pornographic material in areas accessible to children? I think they did

They sure did. This is freely available online. I quoted it weeks ago on this thread. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

A snapshot ... he was a dirty bastard. These books were "commercially available" so therefore weren't brought up in the trial.... however I can guarantee any not pedo male would not have books like this in his book collection - especially with a house full of children. God knows what he managed to hide before the house was searched.

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls, some nude.

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

Photograph: Noted in the document as ‘believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.’

Photograph: young boy holding an umbrella, with bikini bottoms partially pulled down.

Have a look for yourself and see

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

suicide_circus

dig up his skeleton and put it on trial

ceadaoin.

professore wrote: »

They sure did. This is freely available online. I quoted it weeks ago on this thread. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

A snapshot ... he was a dirty bastard. These books were "commercially available" so therefore weren't brought up in the trial.... however I can guarantee any not pedo male would not have books like this in his book collection - especially with a house full of children. God knows what he managed to hide before the house was searched.



Have a look for yourself and see

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Oh I know all about the books, made by and for paedophiles. I mean the plethora of "regular" porn magazines and videos that were found, out in the open and not hidden at all in areas frequented by children. How is that in any way defensible to anyone on here ? It's textbook grooming

Boggles

mcmoustache wrote: »

Unless I'm missing something, it does seem as though he had porn where at a minimum, the kids were able to get at it.

According to a CNN report from 2005...

TBF, it has all been done to death at this stage, the 2 kids went through everything, couple of nosy brats. It was established in the trial.

They also swore about reading playboys that hadn't been published at the time.

dubdaymo

marklazarcovic wrote: »

He kept moving on to other boys as soon as he was done with one,or they became too old for his targeted age range.

The corollary of that is, as anyone with a son will tell you, that a boy reaches an age where he doesn't want to be seen dead with you - or any other adult for that matter .

ceadaoin.

dubdaymo wrote: »

The corollary of that is, as anyone with a son will tell you, that a boy reaches an age where he doesn't want to be seen dead with you - or any other adult for that matter .

Well Safechuck and Robson at least were very upset by it. Safechuck in particular was pretty open about literally being in love with Jackson at that point so it was very painful for him to be "dumped" for another boy. Again, that's grooming

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Oh I know all about the books, made by and for paedophiles. I mean the plethora of "regular" porn magazines and videos that were found, out in the open and not hidden at all in areas frequented by children. How is that in any way defensible to anyone on here ? It's textbook grooming

Again, that's isn't true.

Jackson had a library estimated at over 1 million books, the "paedo" books are listed in American library's all over the country. They even tried to introduce Madonnas book as evidence. :rolleyes:

As for the "regular" porn the prosecution just proved to the jury that it was the normal pornographic habits of most adult males and it wasn't just lying around.

It's another reason the Jury were convinced he was innocent, the whole "porn day" was just a pointless ridiculous charade according to them.

mcmoustache

Boggles wrote: »

TBF, it has all been done to death at this stage, the 2 kids went through everything, couple of nosy brats. It was established in the trial.

They also swore about reading playboys that hadn't been published at the time.

Fair enough. I didn't follow the trial at the time so all I have to go on right now are the reports of the day.

Sleeper12

Galwayguy35 wrote:

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.

Jacksons insurance paid out & Jackson has no say in the matter. Well I suppose he could have refused & by doing so letting the insurance off the hook permanently. There is a clause in most policies stating that the insurance company decides when to pay out. Your own car insurance company can pay out against your wishes. This is to protect themselves.

8-10

Similar to the alcohol accusations when it eventually came out at trial it was clear that the kids broke into the wine cellar rather than being given wine by MJ

Star Arviso (Gavin’s brother) also admitted to lying under oath in the 2005 trial.

I think those kids had the run of the place at times. Odd family but I blame the mother more than them

Galwayguy35

professore wrote: »

They sure did. This is freely available online. I quoted it weeks ago on this thread. https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

A snapshot ... he was a dirty bastard. These books were "commercially available" so therefore weren't brought up in the trial.... however I can guarantee any not pedo male would not have books like this in his book collection - especially with a house full of children. God knows what he managed to hide before the house was searched.



Have a look for yourself and see

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Well that definitely proves beyond doubt he was a paedo.

retro:electro

The “his insurance paid out without his knowledge” argument is as tired as a poorly worded email from a Nigerian Prince. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

Boggles

mcmoustache wrote: »

Fair enough. I didn't follow the trial at the time so all I have to go on right now are the reports of the day.

I actually did. IT was farcical in the extreme, after 10 years of surveillance the prosecution but a family of grifters in the witness box.

By the way for full disclosure, I am not a fan of Jackson or his music, I thought he is a creepy fooker and his "eccentric" ways annoyed me. I was a big fan of Prince, whose eccentric also annoyed the fook out of me too.

But I suppose that's what you get with these "artists".

marklazarcovic

showpony1 wrote: »

I preferred the several other times in the thread this spiel was given where they give the guy a name like "Mick" or "Paddy" down the end of the road to make it more relatable.

I hope you don't have kids if you cannot see what MJ was doing. It's only because it's MJ that you can't I imagine.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

The “his insurance paid out without his knowledge†argument is as tired as a poorly written email from a Nigerian Prince. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

No one said without his knowledge. He had to sign the court agreement. He could have refused but if he refused the insurance company had the right to walk away. If you read the thread you will see documents submitted to the court by the defence in the 2nd case stating that the insurance paid out against Jacksons wishes in the first case. This is documented fact

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No one said without his knowledge. He had to sign the court agreement. He could have refused but if he refused the insurance company had the right to walk away. If you read the thread you will see documents submitted to the court by the defence in the 2nd case stating that the insurance paid out against Jacksons wishes in the first case. This is documented fact

Knock knock?

Who’s there?

Last month’s already refuted argument!

No thanks!

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Last month’s already refuted argument!

Ah go away with yourself. You provided a recording where the lawyer didn't give a definitive yes or no answer to anything. "I believe so", isn't yes. He had no first hand knowledge at all in that interview.

The document was submitted to the court stating that the insurance company paid out & paid out against Jacksons wishes. This was the time for the judge /prosecution to question the document submitted. The content of the document wasn't deputed in court by anyone.

retro:electro

Even Michael himself doesn’t agree with you on that one I’m afraid, as has been proven countless times over on this thread.

Anyways.. about that bridge..

Boggles

showpony1 wrote: »

I preferred the several other times in the thread this spiel was given where they give the guy a name like "Mick" or "Paddy" down the end of the road to make it more relatable.

You mean "Mick" with the slide on his front lawn?

sligeach

ceadaoin. wrote: »

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.

What sex did you mostly hang out with as a kid. I think most boys hung around with mostly lads. And girls slept over in Neverland too. Robson’s sister was one of them and in his bed.

Michael Jackson And Wade Robson: The Real Story

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

https://youtube.com/watch?v=rgSbSotJgUY

Michael kept in contact with Wade and others all throughout their lives. McCauley Culkin is godfather to Paris(he was then 18), I remember he attended MJ's 30th anniversary concert in 2001 in MGS. But Michael kept in contact with Wade to keep the effects of his brainwashing up, right? The rest of your statement is full of as much BS.

mcmoustache

It's another reason the Jury were convinced he was innocent, the whole "porn day" was just a pointless ridiculous charade according to them.

2005 was the criminal trial, I think. In such a trial jurors find you guilty (like Cosby) or not guilty (like OJ) and the finding of guilt must beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't find people innocent.


It's an important distinction.

ceadaoin.

sligeach wrote: »

What sex did you mostly hang out with as a kid. I think most boys hung around with mostly lads. And girls slept over in Neverland too. Robson’s sister was one of them and in his bed.

Michael Jackson wasn't a kid, he was a fully grown man at the time. Are you saying that a non close relative, who is an adult, sharing a bed with children is acceptable? All this stuff about him being a child in a man's body is pure nonsense. That's what he wanted people to think alright, because it gave him access to children and made people turn a blind eye to dubious behaviour.

Yeah robsons sister shared the bed the first time they stayed over. After that she stayed with the mom and Robson shared with Michael alone. Any others?

And yes, these types do keep in contact with their victims. Why wouldn't they want to keep them "on side" and ensure that they won't speak out? And I don't think he abused Culkin actually. It suited him to have a high profile defender like him.

retro:electro

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Michael Jackson wasn't a kid, he was a fully grown man at the time. All this stuff about him being a child in a man's body is pure nonce-sense.

Indeed..

retro:electro

“A child trapped in a man’s body” is a justification you wouldn’t make for another other grown man the world over who decided he wanted to share his bed with little boys. Especially if this man was highly skilled and competent in virtually every other aspect of his life.

ceadaoin.

retro:electro wrote: »

Even Michael himself doesn’t agree with you on that one I’m afraid, as has been proven countless times over on this thread.

Anyways.. about that bridge..

oh look, I still have that article where the insurance company said they wouldn't be paying out and why. Fake news though

Boggles

mcmoustache wrote: »

2005 was the criminal trial, I think. In such a trial jurors find you guilty (like Cosby) or not guilty (like OJ) and the finding of guilt must beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't find people innocent.
It's an important distinction.

I never suggested they did.

It's what they said after the trial when interviewed.

mcmoustache

Boggles wrote: »

I never suggested they did.

It's what they said after the trial when interviewed.

Fair enough. That's a quirk I keep forgetting about the US - the ability of juries to talk to the media afterwards.

Outlaw Pete

I remember reading Lisa Marie's book and she maintained that MJ didn't want to settle but that she was trying to convince him to.

Never understand the focus on the settlement anyway as wasn't it made just to try and stop Jordy and his immediate family from continuing to speak to the media about what they maintain he did and not to stop him from ever testifying in court should he go on to be prosecuted?

Either way, didn't work as Jordy's uncle brought a book out not too long after.

Sleeper12

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Never understand the focus on the settlement anyway as wasn't it made just to try and stop Jordy and his immediate family from continuing to speak to the media about what they maintain he did and not to stop him from ever testifying in court should he go on to be prosecuted?

The insurance settled against Jacksons wishes.

There was no clause in the settlement stopping Jordy testifying in court. I'd imagine that clause would be illegal. Jordy refused to testify in the second case. He actually left the country so he couldn't be subpoenaed.

Outlaw Pete

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There was no clause in the settlement stopping Jordy testifying in court.

That's why I'm saying, which is why I never understand the focus on it.

People reference the settlement all the time as if it somehow stopped the boy (and his family) from seeking justice through the courts but it did nothing of the sort.

I know if I had a son who was abused by a star (or anyone) the authorities would be my first port of call.

8-10

mcmoustache wrote: »

Fair enough. That's a quirk I keep forgetting about the US - the ability of juries to talk to the media afterwards.

One of them did an "Ask-Me-Anything" on Reddit a while back. Said that there was just no evidence to support the charge.

It's madness that the 2005 case got to trial. Pure Tom Sneddon theatre

Sleeper12

8-10 wrote:

One of them did an "Ask-Me-Anything" on Reddit a while back. Said that there was just no evidence to support the charge.

6 jury members where on a TV show. I posted the YouTube video weeks ago on this thread. All 6 said they believed that the family were liars. They have started that it wasn't a reasonable doubt issue. They stated that they didn't believe the accuser or his parents. They also stated that they believed that the claims were totally money based.

I can't say if Jackson is guilty or not but I've yet to see a credible accuser. Someone not interested in money.

AllForIt

Watched the first 13 minutes of the doc. Will watch the rest when I have a chance. I knew absolutely noting about these guys in advance.

Am I right in concluding that they are both gay. They were both little diva performers as kids and both have dotting mothers, in fact both families are bizarrely similar.

Does anyone know why the producers decided to do the interviews in advance of the camera recordings and have them repeat back their 'testimony' on camera later? Perhaps it's because it gives them some leverage when it comes to editing so the doc seems like a nice piece of work rather than how a 'live' interview would come across where ppl would stumble their words and so on.

I have to say I'm really impressed with Wade's account of his experience of meeting Michael as a 5yo. You'd swear it just happened yesterday the he's able recall his feelings on the day. I don't even remember being 5. Well, maybe my previous point explains that one, who knows.

I have to say I'm quite surprised by how both mothers eyes light up when they recount how it all started off for them at the beginning. You'd think that when that the subject is matter is about a man sexually abusing their sons for years all you'd see is scowling faces but not so. They must be very strong women.

Well that's all I have from the first 13 mins, can't wait to get stuck into the rest of it. I've a funny feeling I'll be taking notes if the first 13 minutes is anything to go by haha!

Leroy42

I do find it odd that people come on to defend him. None of us know what really happened, the the weight of circumstantial evidence points to something being very different from what we would usually classify as normal.

I doubt many of his defenders would accept their kids to be placed in the same position. And everything about MJ screams an unusual fascination with young boys.

The usual defence is that he is a boy himself, but no evidence has ever been shown to back that idea up.

One must also remember just how powerful this man was. He was the biggest star in the world, was massively wealthy. Similar in some ways to the church in the respect people automatically gave him.

We have surely all learned from the multiple cases of sexual abuse in the church the power that certain people can have over others, leading to many taking years to come forward (and many probably never).

The 'in it for the money' tag is also used quite a lot, but using the same logic then it would make perfect sense for MJ, and now his estate, to pay out handsomely to protect themselves. So how many have been paid off to keep things quite.

Leroy42

Wow Allforit, that is some about of baseless accusations and barely disguised stereotyping for a person who only saw 13 minutes.

What difference does it make if they are gay?

mcmoustache

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I can't say if Jackson is guilty or not but I've yet to see a credible accuser. Someone not interested in money.

I'm in a similar position. I mentioned earlier in the thread or the other one that it was weird that any parent would allow their kids to sleep with a grown man. Even more sinister if MJ was paying them in some way.


So on one side you have parents who allow their kids to sleep with a grown man and on the other is a grown man who sleeps with children. I don't think that this is black and white, if you'll pardon the pun. I don't think there are any innocent people here.

Leroy42

What adult asks to sleep with kids? Seriously people, think about the logic you are using here.

A grown man sleeping with young boys. Substitute MJ in the story for A Priest and we wouldn't be saying the whole 'no innocent on all this' line

ceadaoin.

They aren't gay, they are both married to women and have children. Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with it

ceadaoin.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm in a similar position. I mentioned earlier in the thread or the other one that it was weird that any parent would allow their kids to sleep with a grown man. Even more sinister if MJ was paying them in some way.


So on one side you have parents who allow their kids to sleep with a grown man and on the other is a grown man who sleeps with children. I don't think that this is black and white, if you'll pardon the pun. I don't think there are any innocent people here.

And in the middle are the several kids who alleged abuse? You know, those guys. It's not just about Jackson and the parents

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

What adult asks to sleep with kids? Seriously people, think about the logic you are using here.

A grown man sleeping with young boys. Substitute MJ in the story for A Priest and we wouldn't be saying the whole 'no innocent on all this' line

Yeah, I can't get past this bit. I've issues with the parents but none of it changes the fact that he was sleeping with kids.