Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

There is 7 or 8 that have come forward.

I have only heard of 5, who are the other 2 or 3?

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

There’s also several adults at the time who claim to have seen abuse occurred/ were suspicious abuse occurred.

You mean the ones who buckled under cross examination and more or less admitted they made it up?

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

I was definitely called that exact term and so were others AFAIK.

But I find it is best just to ignore that sort of person.

Agree fully. My primary interest in this "documentary" is establishing the truth and who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.

Oddly enough Jackson isn't around to defend himself so we don't know if his response to it would be truth or lies.

So that leaves the word of Safechuck and Robson.

Robson told 4 different versions of how the abuse started in his book drafts. His mother has twice directly contradicted how it started. Robson says it was when his family was at the Grand Canyon. His mother says he was with them there. Robson said he was abused 100s of times at Neverland. His mother swore they visited Neverland approximately 14 times of which Jackson was present 4 times.

Safechuck swore the abuse finished when he was 14. Reed says it was 16 or 17. Not good for their narrative! Safechuck gave a graphic account of abuse in a train station that hadn't even been built!

Safechuck said he refused to testify in 2005 for Jackson even though it was impossible for him to testify and also that he didn't admit to being abused until 2013.

So we have a documentary based on the testimony of career perjurers. A great basis alright.

One of the disturbing things about Safechuck and Robson defenders is that they laugh off sworn testimony and perjury as if its some kind of joke and doesn't matter. It shows a complete lack of regard for telling the truth under oath.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

My primary interest in this "documentary" is establishing the truth and who is telling the truth and who is telling lies.

Yes and there are a lot of agreed facts in the documentary.

But I think all we know for sure is he slept alone with young boys.
And outside of the bedroom seemed to have odd relationships with young boys.

Overall a lot of interest in young boys, an interest that appears to dwindle as they get older.

ToBeFrank123

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yes and there are a lot of agreed facts in the documentary.

But I think all we know for sure is he slept alone with young boys.
And outside of the bedroom seemed to have odd relationships with young boys.

Overall a lot of interest in young boys, an interest that appears to dwindle as they get older.

Oh really. So was he still abusing Safechuck when he was 16 or 17?

If so, this blows a hole in your assertion it appeared to dwindle when they got older.

Can you not see what fools Reed, Safechuck and Robson have made of people and how Reed in particular is laughing all the way to the bank on the back of people's gullibility.

As Robson's mother said, Wade could win an Oscar for lying. And this documentary could win an Oscar in the fiction category!

I will summarise. Jackson was a weirdo. We know he shared his bed with children. Big mistake. Do we know he was anally raping them? The only account we have for that comes from a couple of career perjurers who have tried to shakedown the Jackson estate at every turn and failed.

Robson claimed in 2013 he never even knew the Jackson estate existed, this despite trying to sue the same estate in 2011. You couldn't make it up the lies these guys come out, actually you could.

Farawayhome

Remember Jackson had a secret hideout in Ireland. In Westmeath wasn't it? Did he bring any kids with him there? Were local kids kept away from him?

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jackson was a weirdo. We know he shared his bed with children. Big mistake.

I agree wholeheartedly. And not a way to treat children. Shameful from all involved.

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Oh really. So was he still abusing Safechuck when he was 16 or 17?

I have no idea if he ever sexually abused Safechuck.

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Overall a lot of interest in young boys, an interest that appears to dwindle as they get older.

That was Reeds mantra, in every interview he kept repeating he molested "little boys" and "little children".

He has since had to revise that, to "'almost grown men'.

hetuzozaho

Boggles wrote: »

That was Reeds mantra, in every interview he kept repeating he molested "little boys" and "little children".

I was just basing it off Youtube videos with footage and photos of him with his buddies. But maybe I just haven't seen the ones of him as enamoured with them when they are older.

So I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick there. Apologies.

hetuzozaho

Farawayhome wrote: »

Remember Jackson had a secret hideout in Ireland. In Westmeath wasn't it? Did he bring any kids with him there? Were local kids kept away from him?

Never heard of that.

I did read that allegedly when on the Bad tour in Cork, Sam Smyth and Eamon Dunphy were in the Jury's hotel where Safechuck was staying with Michael Jackson and they wrote 'Little Jimmy' a letter.

Something to do with Safechuck having his own room with a do not disturb sign and the windows blocked out and them just finding the relationship a bit concerning.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

Well not just me, law enforcement, social services, psychologists etc all found them credible too. I see the financial gain thing trotted out constantly but what financial motives did the Arvizos have? Did they ever sue Jackson or look for any money? Did they ever sell their story or try to make money with books etc in the years since the accusations? I didn't think they did any of that stuff but maybe they did.

joeguevara

I have no opinion either way but one thing always intrigued me. Macaulay Cullen has always insisted he never experienced sex abuse or witnessed it. Surely he would have been a target.

Also it is strange he wasn’t interviewed if it was a true investigative doc. Especially after it was raised that he was MJs favourite at one time.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I see the financial gain thing trotted out constantly but what financial motives did the Arvizos have?

Are you serious?

I think you need to do a bit reading about Janet, she was quite the grifter.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Are you serious?

I think you need to do a bit reading about Janet, she was quite the grifter.

But regarding the allegations, did they sue Jackson or attempt to make money by selling their story or writing a book, stuff like that, in the years since? Did they financially benefit from accusing Jackson of abuse? I'm sure you can answer that question right?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But regarding the allegations, did they sue Jackson or attempt to make money

Yeah, this has been done to death.

But again.

The whole thing was a grift from the start, that's why they engaged with the same civil lawyer who represented the Chandlers.

Also the law was changed since then.

But it's all on thread and out there if you want to read up on it, fill your boots.

It's pretty evident the family were a bunch of criminals, but if you think they were credible, then that's up to.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, this has been done to death.

But again.

The whole thing was a grift from the start, that's why they engaged with the same civil lawyer who represented the Chandlers.

Also the law was changed since then.

But it's all on thread and out there if you want to read up on it, fill your boots.

It's pretty evident the family were a bunch of criminals, but if you think they were credible, then that's up to.

Still not answering the question.. they didn't actually seek monetary compensation did they? And they still haven't sought to gain financially from the accusations, all these years later.

Maybe they were a bunch of criminals (Jackson sure knew how to pick these kinds of families. Weird) but the fact is they didn't and haven't sought money on the back of the allegations. So it kind of casts doubt on the "they were all in it for the money" line

Investigators involved in the case, psychiatrists specialising in child abuse, and child protection agents who interviewed him all found Gavin arvizo to be a credible witness. But what do they know I guess.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

I have only heard of 5, who are the other 2 or 3?



You mean the ones who buckled under cross examination and more or less admitted they made it up?

Really? Shows you have just being reading biased blogs. All the information is out there for you to find out.

And no that’s not who I mean, again it’s all out there for you to read.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Still not answering the question.. they didn't actually seek monetary compensation did they?

They did, that was the reason for the criminal trial, the law had changed in California and they had to have a criminal trial before a civil one because of the circumstances and allegations.

But even her civil lawyer thought she was "whackjob" only in it money. Of course there would have been no money trial on the back of the clusterfook that was the criminal, probably would have been arrested for wasting the courts time,

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And they still haven't sought to gain financially from the accusations, all these years later.

Who would have paid them? They were outed as crooks in the trial with a history of grifting.

She ended up in prison for fraud AFAIK.

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Really? Shows you have just being reading biased blogs. All the information is out there for you to find out.

And no that’s not who I mean, again it’s all out there for you to read.

Which unbiased blogs have you been reading?

You made the claim, back it up.

I have honestly only ever heard of 5.

hetuzozaho

Is there an agreed number of children he slept with unsupervised, like just him and one child in a bedroom? Roughly even?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

carlowplayer wrote: »

Corey Feldman and MacCauly Kulkin both slept in the same bed as him and were around him alot as children.They report never once being molested.The fact that there are only two victims is telling if MJ was a pedophile there would have been dozens of more victims,Like all pedophiles including with the Catholic Church scandal.A pedophile surrounded by so many young children would have had more than two victims and its been well known the two accusers actually defended MJ while he was alive and and said he wasnt a pedophile.Its about the money plain and simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoHWAOwvZoQ

Remember early ‘90s Culkin? Super famous, super rich in his own right with no doubt savvy parents by that point. It’s no surprise if Jackson didn’t molest him. I believe Culkin when he says Jackson didn’t molest him. It makes sense. Don’t target the more worldly-wise kid who won’t be as malleable as he’ll be much less star-struck.

Feldman’s career was on the wane at that point but he would still have had a savviness that the “nobody” kids didn’t have. I believe him too. Feldman has been vocal about being abused. So I like to think he would have spoken out if anything happened. The stuff he did admit to is pretty fücked though. :eek:

Child abusers don’t abuse every kid. In a way, the famous kids even provide a perfect cover and could even serve as bait. I know as a kid in the early ‘90s, I’d have loved to meet Macaulay, obsessed as I was with Home Alone.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Remember early ‘90s Culkin? Super famous, super rich in his own right with no doubt savvy parents by that point. It’s no surprise if Jackson didn’t molest him.

Hang on didn't his father beat the complete shít out of him constantly and he ended up suing his parents when was still a minor and basically divorced them?

Savvy?

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Super famous, super rich in his own right with no doubt savvy parents by that point.

Yes apparently his father worked in the acting business himself. I don't think the same awe for Jackson would have been there with the Culkins. A very different setup to the other two discussed in the documentary.

Shemale

joeguevara wrote: »

I have no opinion either way but one thing always intrigued me. Macaulay Cullen has always insisted he never experienced sex abuse or witnessed it. Surely he would have been a target.

Creepiest thing I read on this thread

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

No there hasn't. There has been 5 you think have been credible, which have all been done to death at this stage.

Put another way, 5 accusers with very questionable stories, massive credibility issues and a sole purpose of financial gain.

Dang. Michael shouldn’t the settled first one, so. Sounds like he would have won, eh?

joeguevara

Shemale wrote: »

Creepiest thing I read on this thread

I meant that he has come out and said he was never abused or witnessed any. Which is the biggest (imo) indicator that it’s false. But if MJ was an abuser, yes, his so called favourite for want of a better word would have been a target. I think posters accusing others of being paedophile sympathizers to be way creepier.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well not just me, law enforcement, social services, psychologists etc all found them credible too. I see the financial gain thing trotted out constantly but what financial motives did the Arvizos have? Did they ever sue Jackson or look for any money? Did they ever sell their story or try to make money with books etc in the years since the accusations? I didn't think they did any of that stuff but maybe they did.

When people trot it out, do they not realise that the children of parents who are on the make or who are dazzled by the fame or who are deficient in various ways are the perfect children to target? Every time accusers’ grasping parents are brought up, that’s all I can think. Other child abuses cases show that perpetrators target children with less vigilant parents or parents who are somehow malleable. ‘Abducted In Plain Sight’ is a good example of this, if on the very extreme end of the scale.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Dang. Michael shouldn’t the settled first one, so. Sounds like he would have won, eh?

I'd imagine without doubt given the evidence against his father.

But he would have lost a 100m on not fulfilling the contractual obligations of finishing his tour.

But we have been through all this haven't we?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on didn't his father beat the complete shít out of him constantly and he ended up suing his parents when was still a minor and basically divorced them?

Savvy?

You know what savvy means, right? Divorcing his parents if they were abusive? That’s savviness, right there. You literally including an example in your post.

Boggles

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yes apparently his father worked in the acting business himself. I don't think the same awe for Jackson would have been there with the Culkins. A very different setup to the other two discussed in the documentary.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You know what savvy means, right? Divorcing his parents if they were abusive? That’s savviness, right there. You literally including an example in your post.

You said his parents were savvy, they weren't they were complete kunts.

Given Culkins profile and background, seriously abusive father, mother he had to emancipate himself from.

He was absolute cat nip for a serial predatory pedophile.