Micky Jackson in trouble again

Mr.Wemmick

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I was looking at him live in concert over a few drinks some weeks back and it just occurred to me that there was a pain in parts of his singing that snacked a bit, to me, of a repressed unlawful sexual desire.

Paedophilia (we'll assume he was for the convenience of my argument) seems to be a compulsive disorder. Society needs to be protected and paedophiles need genuine help. I don't think there's any prescribed means of treating the condition as far as I know?

Yep, agree, he sang raw, like a man.. not a little kid, a full grown man with grit, vocal punches with hormones and desire.. he had the whole emotional range in there. That's why he was successful. You can't fake that.

But yet, he was naive, like a child with total innocence and just loved hanging out with kids. It's beyond ridiculous.. 'tis no wonder this thread is gone to sh!t.

A grown man should not be hanging out with kids to the extent he was.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jackson and lawyers wanted to fight it. The insurance company didn't. The courtroom was the right place to fight it.

Can I post this again? It seems to get ignored everytime.

What one of Jackson's own lawyers said:

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side

Also from this article

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations

Michael Jackson suffered from the skin discoloration disease vitiligo. Jordie Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings.

This journalist has been claiming this in several articles since the time of the Jordy Chandler settlement. In 25 years not once has she been sued by Jackson or his estate. Don't you think they would do something if they could prove it's false?

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Anyone can make an allegation about anything. I could make an allegation about Mother Theresa for example.

Think herself might be a bad example. Or maybe you are a Jackson and Theresa fan

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No I'm assuming that the abuse has actually happened in this scenario and therefore he is telling the truth. Therefore, it is not speculation it is the truth which makes the allegations of abuse subsequently facts because it actually happened.

Where as in the case against MJ it is all speculation and no truth because there is no evidence to support the allegations.

And what evidence does your son have other than his word.... speculation? You've taken an illogical position here, you've taken your sons word with no evidence, plain and simple.

So court verdicts mean fcuk all too then, seeing as nonce Bob would be viewed as "not guilty", even though you know better?

LessOutragePlz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And what evidence does your son have other than his word.... speculation? You've taken an illogical position here, you've taken your sons word with no evidence, plain and simple.

So court verdicts mean fcuk all too then, seeing as nonce Bob would be viewed as "not guilty", even though you know better?

Did you read the part of my post where I said I'm assuming that the abuse actually happened or did you deliberately ignore it?

Therefore it can be proven to be true with his testimony.

This isn't the case with the allegations against MJ because they can't be proven to be true.

Irish Guitarist

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Did you read the part of my post where I said I'm assuming that the abuse actually happened or did you deliberately ignore it?

Therefore it can be proven to be true with his testimony.

This isn't the case with the allegations against MJ because they can't be proven to be true.

And what happens if you can't prove it true, like most can't, despite it happening? Do court verdicts on such matters hold much weight then, if nonce bob got off for example?

LessOutragePlz

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Did you read the part of my post where I said I'm assuming that the abuse actually happened or did you deliberately ignore it?

Therefore it can be proven to be true with his testimony.

This isn't the case with the allegations against MJ because they can't be proven to be true.

This post makes absolutely no sense.

joe40

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

suicide_circus wrote: »

jimmy saville was never found guilty in a court of law

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

You're going to persist in this line of reasoning.
If he didn't abuse hundreds it is somehow evidence he didn't abuse anyone....
You seem like an intelligent person surely you can see the fallacy in your logic.
Whatever you think about Jackson that is up to you, but there is no playbook or set of rules that all abusers adhere to.
Some enjoy the pain they inflict, some think they are doing no harm and are in a consensual relationship.
It is all abuse and all very damaging but also very different.
It is quite possible for an abuser to be in contact with loads of children but only abuse a few.

suicide_circus

joe40 wrote: »

It is quite possible for an abuser to be in contact with loads of children but only abuse a few.

he was a busy man, didnt have time to molest them all

LessOutragePlz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And what happens if you can't prove it true, like most can't, despite it happening? Do court verdicts on such matters hold much weight then, if nonce bob got off for example?

Yes the court verdict still holds wait.

In your world everyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty.

That would be a great world to live in wouldn't it.

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes the court verdict still holds wait.

In your world everyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty.

That would be a great world to live in wouldn't it.

So it carries weight for nonce bob too then?

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

But you don't know whether your son's a liar, other than your own speculation to choose not to see him as a liar. Kinda similar to how you berate others for choosing to believe those speaking out about Jackson, no? And further more, what evidence would there be to suggest Bob the nonse is a paedophile? He only like's sleeping with kids because his childhood was robbed and the court found him not guilty? So he's not guilty then surely? Seems like you'd change your tune if this "speculation" was to come closer to home. Hypocrite one might say

It is not an apt comparison.

There are about 20 people in my life that I would be confident that if they were telling me a story of abuse, I would be able to tell whether it was true or not. That would include my children.

For the rest of the world, including many close friends, I wouldn't be sure. For someone in a television documentary, I wouldn't have a clue.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not an apt comparison.

There are about 20 people in my life that I would be confident that if they were telling me a story of abuse, I would be able to tell whether it was true or not. That would include my children.

For the rest of the world, including many close friends, I wouldn't be sure. For someone in a television documentary, I wouldn't have a clue.

I agree with you for once. But when we bring up circumstantial evidence in relation to the Jackson case, the poster I'm responding to continually wheels out the "not guilty" verdict as if it's beyond doubt. At best he has no idea

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

is_that_so wrote: »

I've continually stated my problem with this type of documentary, It has a agenda and makes no apology for it. So yeah that's really not my thing and I've no problem passing on it. I also question how someone's sense of "understanding" can be reset by four hours of programming. Uneducated means no learning, you mean uninformed unless there's a pious high-horse thing at work here.

You are uneducated on the programme itself. If you haven’t seen it, that’s indisputable. You can’t possibly critique it. A trailer isn’t enough, no matter what the series, film or documentary. The trailer lets you decide whether to watch the programme but you absolutely cannot critique something you haven’t seen more than very brief snippets of, especially as trailers are often a bit misleading.

There’s a reason why people look foolish when they try to get banned a film or TV show or documentary they haven’t seen. People are rightfully dismissive.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think people keep missing the point about balance in the documentary.
Jackson came into contact with hundreds if not thousands of children in his life. Several have been publicly adament he disn't lay a finger on them. So why didn't the director interview just one? Just a single counter argument or viewpoint in 4 hours. Just one. Instead he put on 4 hours of intereviews with admitted and proven liars.

We know Robson testified in MJ’s favour at the 2005 trial.

Where has James Safechuck been proven a liar? He testified in favour of MJ as a child but not as an adult.

You said liars. Plural. Calling James Safechuck a proven liar is a strong statement. What are you basing that on? When did he admit lying?

Mr.Wemmick

Michael Jackson's album sales have been bumped up in the UK charts since the release of the documentary.

I have to admit, I have been listening to Off The Wall on YT and watched the weird Bashir documentary, as I never really watched it first time round.

There's no taking it away from the man, he was a great music performer in his day.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You said liars. Plural. Calling James Safechuck a proven liar is a strong statement. What are you basing that on? When did he admit lying?

When he declared under oath that Jackson and his lawyers threatened him to testify in 2005.

That didn't happen, because it couldn't happen.

The trial was basically over it had more or less collapsed and the Judge stated no more witnesses.

But he wants us to believe that Jackson and his lawyers were threatening to put yet another hostile witness on the stand that he had "abused" when he didn't have to or couldn't anyway.



Unless of course there is or you have a plausible explanation for that?

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Calling James Safechuck a proven liar is a strong statement. What are you basing that on? When did he admit lying?

Proof seems to have a different meaning for the Jackson defenders depending on who they are applying it to.

Gimme A Pound

Watching it now. Ew... shuddering.

The language is weird too - "We had sex" rather than "he raped me" and even the interviewer saying "you were his lover" instead of "he was abusing you".

Definitely believe Wade and James anyway.

ceadaoin.

Remember the British guy in the 70s too who said that Jackson initiated phone sex during one of his many calls to him as a young teen? He has said he regrets the way it was sensationalised by the tabloids, but that it's true. He too felt guilty for betraying his friend. This all came out years before the abuse allegations.

There's a definite pattern and escalation over the years to all of it imo. Bombarding them with calls, and later on, faxes. Gradually introducing different things. By the time he got to the 90s he had it all figured out.

tylercheribini

The whole "they are just out for the money" argument holds no water, I can think of easier ways of earning a living than participating in a gruelling four hour documentary publicly detailing that I sucked off a man etc..

Gimme A Pound

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Remember the British guy in the 70s too who said that Jackson initiated phone sex during one of his many calls to him? He has said he regrets the way it was sensationalised by the tabloids, but that it's true. This all came out years before the abuse allegations.

Remember very well that man being interviewed. He was in Leeds I think.

is_that_so

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Remember the British guy in the 70s too who said that Jackson initiated phone sex during one of his many calls to him as a young teen? He has said he regrets the way it was sensationalised by the tabloids, but that it's true. This all came out years before the abuse allegations.

There's a definite pattern and escalation over the years to all of it imo. Bombarding them with calls, and later on, faxes. Gradually introducing different things. By the time he got to the 90s he had it all figured out.

Jackson was 12 in 1970 so when exactly was this guy talking about?

anewme

Wade did not mention in the documentary that he was dating MJ’s neice for 7 years and it was set up by MJ. He cheated on her with numerous people including Brittany Spears.

I’m surprised he did not mention it at all in the documentary. It’s relevant to the timeline and story.

tylercheribini

is_that_so wrote: »

Jackson was 12 in 1970 so when exactly was this guy talking about?

He said the "70's"

is_that_so

tylercheribini wrote: »

He said the "1970's"

And my post shows he was a child for most of it.

tylercheribini

is_that_so wrote: »

And my post shows he was a child for most of it.

????Incident occurred in 1979 when Jackson was 21, whats your 'point'?

Gimme A Pound

is_that_so wrote: »

And my post shows he was a child for most of it.

And it was the late '70s when Michael was in his early 20s obviously. Yes he was 12 in 1970 - and he was 21 in '79.

It was around the time of Off The Wall.

is_that_so

tylercheribini wrote: »

????Incident occurred in 1979 when Jackson was 21, whats your 'point'?

It was just a question.

tylercheribini

is_that_so wrote: »

It was just a question.

Nah you just misread post as 1970.

Mr.Wemmick

He aint no kid in 1979.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-Mrc2l1d0

is_that_so

tylercheribini wrote: »

Nah you just misread post as 1970.

Nope, saw 70s and sought clarification. It's OK no need for you to get into any more unnecessary schooling. We're done here.

tylercheribini

is_that_so wrote: »

Nope, saw 70s and sought clarification. It's OK no need for you to get into any more unnecessary schooling. We're done here.

Grand, so you just couldn't make the jump yourself from Jackson being 12 in 1970 and 21 in 1979 bahaha

is_that_so

tylercheribini wrote: »

Grand, so you just couldn't make the jump yourself from Jackson being 12 in 1970 and 21 in 1979 bahaha

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

tylercheribini

is_that_so wrote: »

"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Im ****tin blood.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

When he declared under oath that Jackson and his lawyers threatened him to testify in 2005.

That didn't happen, because it couldn't happen.

The trial was basically over it had more or less collapsed and the Judge stated no more witnesses.

But he wants us to believe that Jackson and his lawyers were threatening to put yet another hostile witness on the stand that he had "abused" when he didn't have to or couldn't anyway.



Unless of course there is or you have a plausible explanation for that?

Agreed. He was caught out on this lie bigtime. It was part of the narrative that he was no longer prepared to dance to Jacksons tune and that Jackson was not a nice guy.

Problem for Safechuck is we know its a lie. His testimony would not have been allowed and was outside the scope of the trial as set out by the judge. In other words he was never asked by anyone to testify.

He's a fantacist from what I can see. And I've come to the same conclusion about Robson who seems to have been an obsessive fan who couldn't deal with the fact post cirque du soleil he was no longer part of the MJ story.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

He's a fantacist from what I can see. And I've come to the same conclusion about Robson who seems to have been an obsessive fan who couldn't deal with the fact post cirque du soleil he was no longer part of the MJ story.

Maybe, I was kind of thinking the opposite, that he was a bit obsessed with them, ringing them and sleeping with them when they were kids and that.

I guess we'll never know the truth.

BorneTobyWilde

Let’s make an analogy. Suppose you had to decide a court case based only on hearing the prosecution’s case presented? Suppose there is no defence, no cross examination, no presentation of exculpatory evidence, no opening statement and no closing argument? You would no doubt find the story as presented only through the voice of the prosecution and their witnesses quite compelling. It is only under cross examination that those stories often start to crumble, raising what we might call reasonable doubt. And it is only through exculpatory evidence that we can actually weigh an accused person’s guilt, or lack thereof.

Leaving Neverland is essentially the equivalent of sitting through a four-hour testimony of two prosecution witnesses offering their sales pitches, without benefit of cross examination. Entertaining? Possibly, if you consider four hours’ worth of extremely graphic descriptions of sexual acts against children entertaining. Truthful? Hard to say, except we know the track record of the accusers.''

Flippyfloppy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Let’s make an analogy. Suppose you had to decide a court case based only on hearing the prosecution’s case presented? Suppose there is no defence, no cross examination, no presentation of exculpatory evidence, no opening statement and no closing argument? You would no doubt find the story as presented only through the voice of the prosecution and their witnesses quite compelling. It is only under cross examination that those stories often start to crumble, raising what we might call reasonable doubt. And it is only through exculpatory evidence that we can actually weigh an accused person’s guilt, or lack thereof.

Leaving Neverland is essentially the equivalent of sitting through a four-hour testimony of two prosecution witnesses offering their sales pitches, without benefit of cross examination. Entertaining? Possibly, if you consider four hours’ worth of extremely graphic descriptions of sexual acts against children entertaining. Truthful? Hard to say, except we know the track record of the accusers.''

Funnily enough the above happened in 93 and 05, but it was the opposite way around.

Back then we only heard from the defense, with carefully orchestrated rumours released to the media in order to discredit any accusers, and paint a picture of an innocent eccentric ‘child in a mans body’

brooke 2

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Reading this thread has given me a understanding of how the Catholic Church got away with what they were doing for so fckin long. Blind fckin loyalty.

MJ was a textbook groomer/abuser/manipulator.

He was good at music.

People are going on like he was a saint, infallible,and his accusers are evil liars.

I actually think if they found homemade abuse vids by Jackson on kids they would find someway to explain away or discredit the victims on it.

Sickening.

And yes I know the guys might be telling some lies,might be,but there has been too much fckin downright obvious behavior from MJ for decades for me not to believe that there are many more boys than them that have been abused by him.

And I bet some of the people on here defending MJ would be the first to condemn the Catholic Church for protecting paedophiles. I cannot understand why people refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes. :mad:

brooke 2

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

So did Priests. They got kids away from the parents, easy peasy, under the umbrella of the respectable Catholic Church. Children sleeping over in priest's houses, happened a lot.. and on religious trips where bedrooms were shared.

I don't get it. Have people been asleep, do not know what went on in our country with religious paedos?

Hollywood have got away with it for years. Agents taking away kids for movie auditions, older actors as mentors, etc. etc.

Jackson was so famous, his activities and movements were photographed a lot so we have the evidence of all his little companions holding his hand, being with him most the time.

Talk about wilful ignorance! :rolleyes:

+100

At the risk of repeating myself....

'There are none so blind as those who will not see'.

ToBeFrank123

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Funnily enough the above happened in 93 and 05, but it was the opposite way around.

Back then we only heard from the defense, with carefully orchestrated rumours released to the media in order to discredit any accusers, and paint a picture of an innocent eccentric ‘child in a mans body’

But there was a prosecution in the case. A key difference. Prosecution and defence. Evidence tested on front of a judge and jury as per judicial norms. Cross examination and so on. All lacking in the documentary.

ToBeFrank123

brooke 2 wrote: »

+100

At the risk of repeating myself....

'There are none so blind as those who will not see'.

Thats a meaningless platitude, no offence. It can be applied to both sides or to anything. I prefer to deal with hard evidence and credible witnesses myself.

ToBeFrank123

brooke 2 wrote: »

And I bet some of the people on here defending MJ would be the first to condemn the Catholic Church for protecting paedophiles. I cannot understand why people refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes. :mad:

Priests were tried and convicted on front of a judge and jury.

You know. Tested evidence. Cross examination. Prosecution and defence. Opening and closing arguments for both sides. Little things like that which to paraphrase you some refuse to look for.

One of these accusers labelled himself the master of deception. That immediately should raise alarm bells.

is_that_so

brooke 2 wrote: »

And I bet some of the people on here defending MJ would be the first to condemn the Catholic Church for protecting paedophiles. I cannot understand why people refuse to see what is right in front of their eyes. :mad:

I think you'll find few if any have defended him but there are some who have questions or who have issues with how the information has been presented. Don't confuse that with "blind" support or defence.

tylercheribini

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But there was a prosecution in the case. A key difference. Prosecution and defence. Evidence tested on front of a judge and jury as per judicial norms. Cross examination and so on. All lacking in the documentary.

Do you think O.J Simpson was guilty? Judicial systems certainly are not infallible.

Gimme A Pound

The "marriage" thing with the rings is so ****ed up. Good Christ...

With regard to "Why come forward now?" or "Why did Wade retract his statement under oath in 2005?" - nothing wrong with asking those questions of course, but treating this information as sufficient grounds to deem the men's testimonies completely false, demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the abuse survivor is affected psychologically.

Integral to grooming/systematic sexual abuse is manipulation and mind control and an extreme power imbalance. Those elements lead to fear, denial, guilt, but also a kind of love, and seeking of approval. They loved Michael, and felt so happy that they were so important to him. And such was his manipulation that they even implied that they thought it sometimes felt good or at least "normal" at the time. They even felt jealous when Jackson lost interest in them and focused on other boys.

It's such a complex web that must be so difficult to work through in adulthood, and that complexity and nuance was articulated in the documentary in such a way that just couldn't be a fabrication imo.

The jury was split in 2005. Some of the jurors knew he was a child molester but ultimately the 'not guilty' result was returned because they couldn't prove the abuse beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean he's innocent. Sexual abuse is notoriously difficult to prove.

Of the jurors who believed Jackson, one dismissed the testimony of Arvizo because he appeared to smirk at one point, and another had issues with him not being emotional enough. This is what shaped their thought process. Some people are idiots, and sometimes idiots sit on juries. One of them (the smirk woman) talked about how she shared a 'moment' with Jackson at the end of the trial. She was dazzled by him.

Wheeliebin30

Flying Fox wrote: »

The jury was split in 2005. Some of the jurors knew he was a child molester but ultimately the 'not guilty' result was returned because they couldn't prove the abuse beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean he's innocent. Sexual abuse is notoriously difficult to prove.

Of the jurors who believed Jackson, one dismissed the testimony of Arvizo because he appeared to smirk at one point, and another had issues with him not being emotional enough. This is what shaped their thought process. Some people are idiots, and sometimes idiots sit on juries. One of them (the smirk woman) talked about how she shared a 'moment' with Jackson at the end of the trial. She was dazzled by him.

Guilty so