Micky Jackson in trouble again

Atoms for Peace

A new documentary about alleged abuse is going to be screened at Sundance amid death threats.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0125/1025482-police-on-high-alert-for-michael-jackson-doc-screening/

I have to admit that even in the current climate I'm still skeptical of the motivation behind the allegations aimed at Michael Jackson.
Yes he was a complete wacko but still he's one of the greatest musicians of the last century. His "wackyness" I'm sympathetic to due to his exploitation at the hands of his parents and then the music industry and media.

Guy:Incognito

I'm guessing being in trouble wont affect him much at this stage............

VeryTerry

On the balance of things there seems to have been more wrong than right with him.

vicwatson

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

A new documentary about alleged abuse is going to be screened at Sundance amid death threats.
https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2019/0125/1025482-police-on-high-alert-for-michael-jackson-doc-screening/

I have to admit that even in the current climate I'm still skeptical of the motivation behind the allegations aimed at Michael Jackson.
Yes he was a complete wacko but still he's one of the greatest musicians of the last century. His "wackyness" I'm sympathetic to due to his exploitation at the hands of his parents and then the music industry and media.

“Musicians”? Did he even play an instrument?

IsaacWunder

vicwatson wrote: »

“Musicians”? Did he even play an instrument?

Just his flute.

Atoms for Peace

vicwatson wrote: »

“Musicians”? Did he even play an instrument?

noun
a person who plays a musical instrument, especially as a profession, or is musically talented.

Hoboo

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Yes he was a complete wacko but still he's one of the greatest musicians of the last century

He was sleeping with kids. That's not wacko. That's paedo.

NIMAN

Couple of guys in their 30s claiming they were abused by MJ.

Wonder how much they are suing his estate for?

Easy to make claims against a dead man.

foxy06

If I was letting our pre teen boys stay overnight in a grown mans house and this grown man will be sleeping in same room, most likely same bed, and his house is set up like a fun park to keep our boys and other boys entertained I would be told I was an idiot as this is obviously grooming for child abuse. I would probably be blamed for allowing it. But because it's Michael Jackson and he's had a few good songs then people don't want to see the bad side of him.

foxy06

wrecked_rectum wrote:

The parents wanted there children abused, get that sweet hush money of Jackson , set them up for life

I can't believe that many parents would allow their kids to be abused. There's been more than a few kids reporting it. If parents did allow it they should be prosecuted.

Irish Guitarist

Are you more willing to believe his innocence because you like his music? If you heard a story about a man who wasn't famous building an amusement park at his house, inviting children over and sleeping in the same bed as them would you believe for a second he wasn't abusing them?

Similarly if someone who was a shelf stacker in Tesco (rather than being the songwriter and guitar player with The Who) paid for child pornography and claimed it was for 'research' would anyone believe them?

I like Billie Jean and Beat It as much as the next man but I think the chances of him not being a child molester are slim to none. His acquittal means nothing to me.

Irish Guitarist

vicwatson wrote: »

“Musicians”? Did he even play an instrument?

He's credited as playing guitar, keyboards and percussion on History.

https://www.allmusic.com/album/history-past-present-and-future-book-i-mw0000123992/credits

goat2

He had no need to sleep with these children, he had a big house with plenty bedrooms,
I would not let my children sleep with anyone in any house and that includes my own, even when I had visitors, I would let the visitors sleep in the children's rooms, but the children would be sleeping in my room, and on the floor if needs be, which did happen,

I thought that was very strange, did the parents know that he was sharing beds with these children

suicide_circus

I think we're forgetting something very important in all of this. Okay, sure, he touched some children, but the man is a great singer and he has entertained us for so many years.All this baad-mouthin' and puttin' the man down. Maybe he did touch some children now and then, but come on! It's Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson!

BeerWolf

It's ignorance is ignorance!

*Waving arms about*

goat2

suicide_circus wrote: »

I think we're forgetting something very important in all of this. Okay, sure, he touched some children, but the man is a great singer and he has entertained us for so many years.All this baad-mouthin' and puttin' the man down. Maybe he did touch some children now and then, but come on! It's Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson!

You must be joking,
I don't care what profession be it a singer, or an out of work person, or the pope, same rules apply,

Teddy Daniels

goat2 wrote: »

You must be joking,
I don't care what profession be it a singer, or an out of work person, or the pope, same rules apply,

They were clearly joking!

Toots

goat2 wrote: »

You must be joking,
I don't care what profession be it a singer, or an out of work person, or the pope, same rules apply,

It's a South Park quote

Sleeper12

He's dead & can't defend himself. I was never a fan of his but I do believe he should be left alone. It must be very hurtful for his children with stuff like this surfacing again

IsaacWunder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He's dead & can't defend himself. I was never a fan of his but I do believe he should be left alone. It must be very hurtful for his children with stuff like this surfacing again

<cough> Jimmy Saville

Atlantic Dawn

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He's dead & can't defend himself. I was never a fan of his but I do believe he should be left alone. It must be very hurtful for his children with stuff like this surfacing again

Jimmy Saville couldn't defend himself either.

VeryTerry

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He's dead & can't defend himself. I was never a fan of his but I do believe he should be left alone. It must be very hurtful for his children with stuff like this surfacing again

So is Jimmy Saville. Justice for the victims trumps any hurt the family might feel.

Sleeper12

Atoms for Peace wrote:

A new documentary about alleged abuse is going to be screened at Sundance amid death threats.

IsaacWunder wrote:

Jimmy Saville

Atlantic Dawn wrote:

Jimmy Saville couldn't defend himself either.

Michael Jackson was already cleared of charges by a court. Several of the big name kids he was friends with to this day go on the record stating nothing happened.

Huge difference between Jackson and Saville.

Sleeper12

VeryTerry wrote:

So is Jimmy Saville. Justice for the victims trumps any hurt the family might feel.

There was more than enough evidence to set up the Jimmy Savile inquiry.

There is no such evidence with Michael Jackson. If there was there would be an inquiry. If there was evidence these 30 something adults making the claims would sue the Jackson estate in a civil court. They love to do this in the states

IsaacWunder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Michael Jackson was already cleared of charges by a court. Several of the big name kids he was friends with to this day go on the record stating nothing happened.

Huge difference between Jackson and Saville.

Jackson settled a civil case in 1993 for $22 million.

Sleeper12

IsaacWunder wrote:

Jackson settled a civil case in 1993 for $22 million.

I sacked a guy for stealing from the till. Had it on cctv. He brings me to labour court. Arbitrator advised me to make a payment to him as a full hearing could have me not being able to work for several days due to court appearances. I paid. I sacked him because he stole & I had video proof but I payed.

Sometimes paying is easier. A mistake in Jacksons case imo. You will also notice that it was an out of court settlement & he was not found guilty nor did he admit guilt.

The law of the land says that he's not guilty & is entitled to the assumption of innocence

His accusers today aren't bringing his estate to court. There is no evidence for an inquiry or investigation.

Never liked his music and I thought him a dope but you have to look at these things and look at the bigger picture. There is no inquiry, investigation or civil action. Why do you suppose that is?

TheValeyard

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'm guessing being in trouble wont affect him much at this stage............

He's not dead. Your just ignorant.

TheValeyard

BeerWolf wrote: »

It's ignorance is ignorance!

*Waving arms about*

Damn it, beaten to it!!!

Irish Guitarist

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He's dead & can't defend himself. I was never a fan of his but I do believe he should be left alone. It must be very hurtful for his children with stuff like this surfacing again

Poor Blanket.

retro:electro

There’s nothing innocent about a grown man sleeping in the same bed as young boys, having alarms and censors fitted so he knew when people were approaching his bedroom, and having his whole house kitted out like a children’s fantasy wonderland. He was a paedophile.

Sleeper12

Irish Guitarist wrote:

Poor Blanket.

I've pitied those kids all their lives. They certainly can't claim to have had a normal upbringing or life. Paris has checked into rehab only recently

Ash.J.Williams

vicwatson wrote: »

“Musicians”? Did he even play an instrument?

Michael Jackson would have had musicianship beaten into him. So yes he was a professional musician.the fact you even ask such a question means you don't know an awful lot about musicianship?

joeguevara

NIMAN wrote: »

Couple of guys in their 30s claiming they were abused by MJ.

Wonder how much they are suing his estate for?

Easy to make claims against a dead man.

But if his estate has already been distributed there would be no money to sue for. They can’t sue the beneficiaries as they are innocent parties. That would be whybwhere there is pending court cases against an estate payouts to the beneficiaries in the will would be suspended until after any actions.

A dead person whose will has been distributed can’t pay.

Paddy Cow

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've pitied those kids all their lives. They certainly can't claim to have had a normal upbringing or life. Paris has checked into rehab only recently

The oldest lad seems to have his head screwed on. He wants to work in the entertainment industry but behind the camera, either producing or directing.

IsaacWunder

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I sacked a guy for stealing from the till. Had it on cctv. He brings me to labour court. Arbitrator advised me to make a payment to him as a full hearing could have me not being able to work for several days due to court appearances. I paid. I sacked him because he stole & I had video proof but I payed.

Sometimes paying is easier. A mistake in Jacksons case imo. You will also notice that it was an out of court settlement & he was not found guilty nor did he admit guilt.

The law of the land says that he's not guilty & is entitled to the assumption of innocence

His accusers today aren't bringing his estate to court. There is no evidence for an inquiry or investigation.

Never liked his music and I thought him a dope but you have to look at these things and look at the bigger picture. There is no inquiry, investigation or civil action. Why do you suppose that is?

Settling a matter in the WRC is a very different kettle of fish. Would you have settled an accusation of paedophilic assault if you were accused?

NickD

R Kelly was found not guilty, so was O.J Simpson.

Sleeper12

IsaacWunder wrote:

Settling a matter in the WRC is a very different kettle of fish. Would you have settled an accusation of paedophilic assault if you were accused?

I never would have put myself in the situation where I could be accused in the first place. I adore kids. I'd gladly spend my day on the floor playing with kids (not in that way). I don't even talk to a child I don't know unless my wife is beside me. I'd never even leave myself open like he did.

ceadaoin.

The victims themselves explained why they testified that he hadn't abused them - they were told by him that if they said anything their lives would be ruined, and they didn't actually realise it was abuse at the time. They thought they were consenting. This is what grooming is.

I've never believed that Jackson was innocent and this just cements it for me. There is no reason for a grown man to share a bed with children and to go to the extent he did to be undisturbed with them. Just no.

Sleeper12

NickD wrote:

R Kelly was found not guilty, so was O.J Simpson.

So was Paddy Jackson & his co accused. His Ireland career was ruined because people won't accept the not guilty verdict.

You don't get to pick & choose who is innocent and guilty after a not guilty verdict. You have to accept the verdict.

Gatling

Multiple police and FBI investigations found nothing despite multiple claims from supposed witnesses of abuse and claims of computers and laptops full of child porn but yet nothing was ever found ,
I don't believe he was an actual peodo ,a messed up individual who didn't make the smartest of decisions ,
Look at saville some of the witnesses who gave statements against him literally said i heard for someone who said he did this and that ,and the majority lining up for claim's had zero interest in making complaints to authorities but wanted cash payouts ,he was a sick individual but it shows anyone can take advantage of anothers persons abuse for money .
The whole #metoo was the same people on here happy to say they always knew this celeb and that celebs were abusers based of tweets .

NickD

Sleeper12 wrote: »

So was Paddy Jackson & his co accused. His Ireland career was ruined because people won't accept the not guilty verdict.

You don't get to pick & choose who is innocent and guilty after a not guilty verdict. You have to accept the verdict.

My point was more about America than here, that's why I named two American, very clearly guilty men.

Both of them have admitted to what they've done, both were wealthy, popular entertainers and both had a fan base that refused to hear anything bad about their hero. Both paid huge sums to the victims/ their families.

Paddy Jackson doesn't fit that comparison at all.

Billy86

I was always quite sure something murky was up, but I think Cory Feldman, mentally unwell as he clearly is, being so adamant that Jackson never did anything to him or anyone else he saw there despite all his allegations towards others (which sadly I reckon there is a lot of credence behind) really gives an awful lot of pause for thought. Not seen this documentary though, I might flick it on this evening.

NickD

Billy86 wrote: »

I was always quite sure something murky was up, but I think Cory Feldman, mentally unwell as he clearly is, being so adamant that Jackson never did anything to him or anyone else he saw there despite all his allegations towards others (which sadly I reckon there is a lot of credence behind) really gives an awful lot of pause for thought. Not seen this documentary though, I might flick it on this evening.

It's four hours long!!

Sleeper12

NickD wrote:

My point was more about America than here, that's why I named two American, very clearly guilty men.

You see you can't say that. America has the same setup as here and in the North. Not guilty gives you the presumption of insurance. There is no difference between the states and here just because you want to say two are guilty but wanted the lads in the North innocent.

Legally paddy Jackson is as innocent or guilty as Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson & R Kelly.

No offence meant here but it's hypocritical to say some are guilty but paddy Jackson isn't. All are not guilty

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The victims themselves explained why they testified that he hadn't abused them - they were told by him that if they said anything their lives would be ruined, and they didn't actually realise it was abuse at the time. They thought they were consenting. This is what grooming is.

I've never believed that Jackson was innocent and this just cements it for me. There is no reason for a grown man to share a bed with children and to go to the extent he did to be undisturbed with them. Just no.

I could understand how Wade Robson might have done that as a 14-17 year old.

It's harder for me to understand how he did it as a 23 year old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Robson

Robson testified in Michael Jackson's defense at the People v. Jackson trial in 2005. When Jackson was acquitted of child abuse in this case, Robson said he had slept many times in Jackson's room, but he had never experienced any assault.In 2013, Robson claimed the opposite; that Jackson had sexually abused him as a child.In 2017, however, a judge dismissed the lawsuit against the Jackson estate on the grounds that the accused parties could not have controlled Jackson's behavior. The judge's ruling was not based on the credibility of Robson's allegations.]


I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.

VeryTerry

Sleeper12 wrote: »

So was Paddy Jackson & his co accused. His Ireland career was ruined because people won't accept the not guilty verdict.

You don't get to pick & choose who is innocent and guilty after a not guilty verdict. You have to accept the verdict.

The public made a decision about Jackson based on the details from the case. Everybody has the right to their own opinion in matters of morality.

Are we to assume you're wrong and the lad that stole from you is right?

Sleeper12

VeryTerry wrote:

The public made a decision about Jackson based on the details from the case. Everybody has the right to their own opinion in matters of morality.

My point is that a poster is stating that two Americans are guilty. I'm saying that a very proportion of people believe the lads from the North are guilty. It's wrong to suggest that any of them are guilty. According to the law of Ireland, UK & USA they all have the presumption of innocence. The Northern lads are no more guilty or innocent than Michael Jackson, OJ etc.

It's ridiculous for a poster to say that the ones in the states are different to the ones in Ireland. All are not guilty according to the law. Notice I didn't say innocent. None of them were proven innocent. It's practically impossible to be proven innocent.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I could understand how Wade Robson might have done that as a 14-17 year old.

It's harder for me to understand how he did it as a 23 year old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Robson

Robson testified in Michael Jackson's defense at the People v. Jackson trial in 2005. When Jackson was acquitted of child abuse in this case, Robson said he had slept many times in Jackson's room, but he had never experienced any assault.In 2013, Robson claimed the opposite; that Jackson had sexually abused him as a child.In 2017, however, a judge dismissed the lawsuit against the Jackson estate on the grounds that the accused parties could not have controlled Jackson's behavior. The judge's ruling was not based on the credibility of Robson's allegations.]


I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.

I can understand that, shame and denial are powerful things. They were made to feel like they were in a relationship with jackson. maybe even money for their silence. Both have said they didn't begin to process what had happened until after his death.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I can understand that, shame and denial are powerful things. They were made to feel like they were in a relationship with jackson. maybe even money for their silence. Both have said they didn't begin to process what had happened until after his death.

It's documented that they were "dropped" at age 14 by Jackson. So how does that explain testifying on his behalf in an abuse case aged 23? Did they still believe, aged in their 20's that they were "in a relationship" with MJ?


You're the one who has suggested "money for silence"- not me.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.

I'm of the same thought. The guy is a liar one way or the other. Hard to figure out the truth there.

Many celebrities shared a bed with him and have insisted that nothing happened. More importantly for me is that their story never changed over the years or since his death. Macauly Culkin is one who to this day defends Jackson

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's documented that they were "dropped" at age 14 by Jackson. So how does that explain testifying on his behalf in an abuse case aged 23? Did they still believe, aged in their 20's that they were "in a relationship" with MJ?


You're the one who has suggested "money for silence"- not me.

Because they were ashamed and embarrassed. It's a fairly common feeling among abuse victims, especially those who were groomed.