Micky Jackson in trouble again

is_that_so

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 Arvito 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.

Jury of your peers is how it works. This seems to suggest you only approve of it when it deliver verdicts with which you agree. It's still a far better option than trial by public opinion, social media or dunking.

is_that_so

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Guilty so

Think the verdict came out differently no matter what you think it should have been.

Wheeliebin30

is_that_so wrote: »

Think the verdict came out differently no matter what you think it should have been.

Ah jaysus

is_that_so

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ah jaysus

I know. Terrible. Legal systems should really do what we tell them.

ceadaoin.

is_that_so wrote: »

It was just a question.

No. You tried to insinuate and put it out there that it happened when Jackson was a child. It didn't.

It shows a pattern of behaviour, even back then

is_that_so

is_that_so wrote: »

Jury of your peers is how it works. This seems to suggest you only approve of it when it deliver verdicts with which you agree. It's still a far better option than trial by public opinion, social media or dunking.

I'm not suggesting we get rid of juries, I'm just pointing out that they're not infallible. Some jurors decide on a feeling rather than critically analysing the case.

mikeym

Its too late now Jacko is dead.

The documentary was very tedious to watch at the end.

We all knew Jacko was a fruit cake and liked to have boys in his bedroom so I blame the mothers.

Gimme A Pound

Flying Fox wrote: »

I'm not suggesting we get rid of juries, I'm just pointing out that they're not infallible. Some jurors decide on a feeling rather than critically analysing the case.

Yeah remember the woman saying she wasn't gonna put up with the bad attitude she perceived Gavin Arvizo's mother to have. Awful stupid **** can influence a decision.

tylercheribini

watching the doc it really struck me what a specific type of boy Jackson chose to befriend, if it was about altruism surely it would have been the whole spectrum of boys and girls.

Gimme A Pound

mikeym wrote: »

Its too late now Jacko is dead.

The documentary was very tedious to watch at the end.

We all knew Jacko was a fruit cake and liked to have boys in his bedroom so I blame the mothers.

No, I blame the grooming, manipulative abuser. I blame the *parents* (are mothers the only parents? ) too though.

micar

mikeym wrote: »

so I blame the mothers.

I blame the perpetrator.

The mothers are victims as well.

He had an unhealthy interest/relationship with young children.

This all stems from his father who physically and mentally abused him. When touring he would share a room with his elder brothers who'd be shagging birds in the next bed.

He grew up without any meaningful childhood, little or no formal education.

He developed a sick fascination with young boys and abused them alone. He promised them the world. They loved him. They had no idea what was happening was wrong as they had nothing to base it on.

I'm.sure fans seeing these boys hanging out with him were thinking....these boys are so lucky when in fact they were the unluckiest children in the world.

His relationships with women were purely for media. His children were born using IVF. Was he actuallg able to connect to an adult?

Gimme A Pound

The parents were "groomed" too, but still... they were their parents.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

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

Definitely does with me.

As does the guy sleeping with children, I'm sure you'd agree

Gimme A Pound

That documentary was rough. Those poor men - my heart goes out to them. They started off coming across as pretty well adjusted, but as it went on, you could see how damaged they are. To falsify such a thing would require Dustin Hoffman levels of acting.

Even though they have nothing to be ashamed of, they must still carry such shame for "letting it" happen - but they were groomed, and there was a Stockholm syndrome thing going on. I thought it was perfectly encapsulated when James talked about how he would be fit to kill someone who did that to his children, yet he doesn't feel the same kind of anger over it being done to him.

And what it has done to their families too...

Right before that documentary I thought of Michael Jackson as a possible abuser but who was kind of a victim because he had no childhood and was possibly sexually abused himself, and just wanted to live the childhood he never had... but now, despite truth in the above, I just see him as a calculating, scheming, manipulative bastard.

People say he was a naive, innocent, child-like man. Yes, that's the kind of thing groomers want you to think.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Definitely does with me.

As does the guy sleeping with children, I'm sure you'd agree

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar? And that's essentially what many people have done. Accepted unconditionally as gospel the word for two proven liars and self confessed deceivers.

A court of law is the only place to interrogate these guys properly. Why are some people so opposed to court rooms and the law?

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar? And that's essentially what many people have done. Accepted unconditionally as gospel the word for two proven liars and self confessed deceivers.

A court of law is the only place to interrogate these guys properly. Why are some people so opposed to court rooms and the law?

Think you replied to the wrong person

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar?

Michael Jackson is also a proven liar. He told the insurers of his 2009 tour that he hadn't seen a doctor since 2005 and didn't disclose the prescription drugs he was taking. The insurers took legal action but it was settled with the estate in the end. He has also lied about his plastic surgery - who seriously believes he's only had work done on his nose?

What about his credibility?

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^

telling pork pies about plastic surgery and telling pork pies about child abuse are two totally different things

those of you sitting on the fence...i urge you to watch this..

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

its as plain as day they're lying

I did watch Oprah and it's plain as day to me that they're telling the truth. James is utterly traumatised.

Gimme A Pound

There was the same kind of talk regarding Savile's victims too - "Why now?", "looking for money" etc. There is a very simplistic outlook towards what child abuse survivors "should" feel or do, when there is a tangled up mess in their heads.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar?

Yeah and Jackson sat on camera and said he only had 2 nosejobs and no other plastic surgery.

He obsessively shared a bed with young boys , 365 days straight with one of them. Coupled with all the other circumstancial evidence, Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Because Robson allegedly cheated on his girlfriend years ago? I mean, please, what a joke

fryup

Flying Fox wrote: »

James is utterly traumatised.

yes he is traumatised....because he's panicking cause he knows deep down this is one big charade and sooner or later they're going to be found out

*put them up against a tough interviewer and they'll implode:cool:

Gimme A Pound

fryup wrote: »

yes he is traumatised....because he's panicking cause he knows deep down this is one big charade and sooner or later they're going to be found out

No "I think", just "this is one big charade" as if it's a fact?

fin12

fryup wrote: »

yes he is traumatised....because he's panicking cause he knows deep down this is one big charade and sooner or later they're going to be found out

*put them up against a tough interviewer and they'll implode:cool:

Who would be a good interviewer that would really grill them?

fryup

fin12 wrote: »

Who would be a good interviewer that would really grill them?

Piers Morgan, i know some hate him but he's the only one so far to put probing questions to the director of this farce

off the top of my head...BBC's Jeremy Paxman, Sky News's Jeremy Thompson, CNN's Wolf Blitzer

dd973

''Farhkin ell, has he been at the kids again? He's gotta go the Grammy's soon the twat, someone find 'im a bird!''

...''Ere Brooke, you doin anything next week?...''

Andrew00

Hollywood and the Vatican nothing but pesterfiles and molesters

Gimme A Pound

No response to my last question I see. I don't see an issue with expressing doubt - I may not agree, but that's opinions isn't it. However to state as a fact that this is entirely a charade - off the chart level of delusion.

But anyway, something else that struck me was when Wade was interviewed a few years back about his retraction, he was very adamant that it wasn't a repressed memory. A common occurrence for abuse survivors is repressed memories so that would have been an ideal go-to if it were all just a fabrication.

wakka12

Cant believe people dont think he was a paedophile. Would you believe somebody you knew wasnt a paedophile if 5 boys accused him of abusing them?
Thats before you even think about the fact that he was a middle aged man who exclusively befriended young boys and seemed to stick to them like glue, bringing them everywhere, these boys were strangers why did he want to be friends with them so badly, how many adult men do you know who hang out with children like that? A normal adult cannot be emotionally sustained by the presence of very young children as their main source of friendship

Im so shocked at the amount of people who believe he wasnt a paedophile


If they were just doing it for money wouldnt you see more celebrities being accused of things liek this. Did the women who accused weinstein get any money out of it?

3rdDegree

wakka12 wrote: »

Cant believe people dont think he was a paedophile. Would you believe somebody you knew wasnt a paedophile if 5 boys accused him of abusing them?

I'm not sure it's a case of people thinking he wasn't a paedophile, I think a lot of people are just saying the argument (documentary) shouldn't be so one sided.

Dontfadeaway

wakka12 wrote: »

Cant believe people dont think he was a paedophile. Would you believe somebody you knew wasnt a paedophile if 5 boys accused him of abusing them?
Thats before you even think about the fact that he was a middle aged man who exclusively befriended young boys and seemed to stick to them like glue, bringing them everywhere, these boys were strangers why did he want to be friends with them so badly, how many adult men do you know who hang out with children like that? A normal adult cannot be emotionally sustained by the presence of very young children as their main source of friendship

Im so shocked at the amount of people who believe he wasnt a paedophile


If they were just doing it for money wouldnt you see more celebrities being accused of things liek this. Did the women who accused weinstein get any money out of it?

He was far from normal and we know Wade done everything to get money before finally doing this doc.

Trump Is Right

Maddox Ripe Pail wrote: »

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.

Great... but just because you (and obviously many other people) are easily convinced by a well polished docu-drama without any solid evidence, this doesn't really change any of the facts!

tylercheribini wrote: »

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..

The motives of the people involved are not that important. Or their collective moral compass... the facts should outweigh everything else. I don't see facts here, just accusations!

It is scary how quick people are to assume guilt, just based purely on the weight of accusations, despite a lack of substantial evidence to prove said accusations!

airy fairy

What substantial evidence did the survivors of child sex abuse from the church bring when half the perpetrators were dead? Did we ask them for video evidence of such crimes from the 60's? Or is it ok to believe those survivors because it was the church?
Many many survivors don't realise they have been groomed and sexuality abused because the brain locks it away, sometimes for a few years, right up to 20, 30, 40 years later, or it's never unlocked at all.
Possibly some people who refuse to even understand a survivor need to research the findings and experiences that trauma councillors and CBT therapists have, to get a tiny inkling of what sexual abuse does to somebody.
The complete ignorance in this thread here, shown to sex abuse survivors, MJ discussion aside, is astounding, and it's no wonder survivors of same feel embarrassed and ashamed to come forward to tell their story.

Trump Is Right

airy fairy wrote: »

What substantial evidence did the survivors of child sex abuse from the church bring when half the perpetrators were dead? Did we ask them for video evidence of such crimes from the 60's? Or is it ok to believe those survivors because it was the church?
Many many survivors don't realise they have been groomed and sexuality abused because the brain locks it away, sometimes for a few years, right up to 20, 30, 40 years later, or it's never unlocked at all.
Possibly some people who refuse to even understand a survivor need to research the findings and experiences that trauma councillors and CBT therapists have, to get a tiny inkling of what sexual abuse does to somebody.
The complete ignorance in this thread here, shown to sex abuse survivors, MJ discussion aside, is astounding, and it's no wonder survivors of same feel embarrassed and ashamed to come forward to tell their story.

Just because some people require hard evidence/facts to substantiate these serious accusations... this does not mean we don't understand the psychological affects and mechanisms of abuse!

You are showing your own ignorance towards other people's knowledge on the subject. Don't make assumptions about what you think other people know or their level of understanding... you really have no clue what other people have been through in their lives or what they have experienced or understand on the subject!

Mr.Wemmick

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Just because some people require hard evidence/facts to substantiate these serious accusations... this does not mean we don't understand the psychological affects and mechanisms of abuse!

You are showing your own ignorance towards other people's knowledge on the subject. Don't make assumptions about what you think other people know or their level of understanding... you really have no clue what other people have been through in their lives or what they have experienced or understand on the subject!

We? Are you writing on behalf of other people on this thread or just yourself?

It is abundantly clear that many on this thread are not knowledgable and are clueless with limited experience as to the effects of abuse and how it can hamper a successful prosecution with traumatised victims tripping up over their own memories.

Might I suggest, that unless clearly stated, you also have no clue as to the lack of understanding on the subject. You can only speak for yourself.

fin12

3rdDegree wrote: »

I'm not sure it's a case of people thinking he wasn't a paedophile, I think a lot of people are just saying the argument (documentary) shouldn't be so one sided.

I believe he wasnt a paedophile and unless concrete evidence has been found, I’m not going to believe otherwise.

He freely told the world how he sleeps with boys in his bed cause it was all innocent and he had nothing to hide.

airy fairy

Trump Is Right wrote: »

you really have no clue what other people have been through in their lives or what they have experienced or understand on the subject!

Nah, I have no clue.

batgoat

fin12 wrote: »

I believe he wasnt a paedophile and unless concrete evidence has been found, I’m not going to believe otherwise.

He freely told the world how he sleeps with boys in his bed cause it was all innocent and he had nothing to hide.

The problem here is I'm very much so being reminded of people leaping to the defence of Savile and explaining away his behaviour.

batgoat

batgoat wrote: »

The problem here is I'm very much so being reminded of people leaping to the defence of Savile and explaining away his behaviour.

Exactly, like Savile he was hiding in plain sight.

Hannibal_Smith

Theres a new video out of Jackson being deposed in 1996. Worth a look.

I didnt realise that the guy in the Bashir interview is Gavin Alviriz...the guy who made the allegations in the criminal case.

8-10

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Theres a new video out of Jackson being deposed in 1996. Worth a look.

I didnt realise that the guy in the Bashir interview is Gavin Alviriz...the guy who made the allegations in the criminal case.

*Arvizo. Yes the documentary sparked the FBI and Child Protective Services investigation into whether Gavin was molested

Gwynplaine

Watched the first part last night, will watch part 2 during the week. A tough watch. How come none of his staff or entourage have come forward with some statements? They surely saw something in all those years.

Hannibal_Smith

8-10 wrote: »

*Arvizo. Yes the documentary sparked the FBI and Child Protective Services investigation into whether Gavin was molested

I didnt twig that was the kid. That was footage of him in the documentary, wasnt it? The kid giving a statement to police?

8-10

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I didnt twig that was the kid. That was footage of him in the documentary, wasnt it? The kid giving a statement to police?

Yes.

Remember the allegation is that the abuse started after the Bashir interview

Beechwoodspark

Delighted to know it’s very likely I’ll never hear another song by this piece of .... on Irish radio for a very long time, possibly ever.

Proper order.

Hannibal_Smith

8-10 wrote: »

Yes.

Remember the allegation is that the abuse started after the Bashir interview

Ah ok...i didnt realise that.

LessOutragePlz

Gwynplaine wrote: »

Watched the first part last night, will watch part 2 during the week. A tough watch. How come none of his staff or entourage have come forward with some statements? They surely saw something in all those years.

Maybe because nothing ever happened and therefore, there was nothing to witness.

sbsquarepants

Seen a thing on twitter over the weekend....

Watching leaving neverland and i'm absolutely shocked. I mean who could have thought that the glow in the dark skeleton, who liked to dress like napoleon and who lived in a fun fair with his friend the chimpanzee, could have been such a damn weirdo.:D

8-10

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Ah ok...i didnt realise that.

It’s the only timeline the prosecution could get to fit...that Jackson waited until after the documentary, after the media furore about Arvizo, after the FBI started investigating and during the time that he was being interviewed by Child Protective Services.....that’s the time when they alleged he decided to start abusing him for the very first time.

Imagine being falsely accused of something by the FBI, which the prosecution was saying, and having them investigate you and then saying “oh if they think I was doing this then maybe I can now go do it”. It makes no sense. He was rightly found not guilty in the Arvizo case

Hannibal_Smith

8-10 wrote: »

It’s the only timeline the prosecution could get to fit...that Jackson waited until after the documentary, after the media furore about Arviso, after the FBI started investigating and during the time that he was being interviewed by Child Protective Services.....that’s the time when they alleged he decided to start abusing him for the very first time.

Imagine being falsely accused of something by the FBI, which the prosecution was saying, and having them investigate you and then saying “oh if they think I was doing this then maybe I can now go do it”. It makes no sense. He was rightly found not guilty in the Arviso case

How do you know this, can i read it somewhere?

I dont mean about the last bit i mean about timelines etc