Micky Jackson in trouble again

buried

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I have no idea. If somebody was so detached from reality (as we are told Jackson was), I could easily see him not understanding why it would be a crazy thing to admit. I mean, was he affected by his childhood or wasn’t he? You can’t suddenly claim he was a model of rationality when it suits you to.

Fair enough. It seems to suit your own viewpoint just fine so I will so the same with mine. None of us are the ultimate judge or ever will be, so stick with whatever viewpoint you like and I will do likewise.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Why would I want that to be true? Seriously, enlighten me.

Because you refuse to even look at anything else.
Because you refuse to accept the court decisions.
Because you refuse to accept the fact there is no evidence.
Because you refuse to accept Robson and Safechuck have lied, despite being caught lying numerous times
Because whilst people give reasons for his innocence and despite 99% of those people in his company as kids still defend him today and say nothing happened, you still shoot it down and say they're talking balls and insist it did happen

Again, that's fine. I didn't know the bloke so it makes no odds to me. I just find that mentality weird tbh.

And before you ask, I'm invested in it because I just find it interesting, both from a justice and sociology aspect. Have a keen interest in both

Maybe someday you'll get what you want and some evidence will come to light that he molested a kid. Until then though, just going to have it let it lie.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

Because you refuse to even look at anything else.
Because you refuse to accept the court decisions.
Because you refuse to accept the fact there is no evidence.
Because you refuse to accept Robson and Safechuck have lied, despite being caught lying numerous times
Because whilst people give reasons for his innocence and despite 99% of those people in his company as kids still defend him today and say nothing happened, you still shoot it down and say they're talking balls and insist it did happen

Again, that's fine. I didn't know the bloke so it makes no odds to me. I just find that mentality weird tbh. You were also trying to put words in my mouth earlier on

Maybe someday you'll get what you want and some evidence will come to light that he molested a kid. Until then though, just going to have it let it lie

I said I had read plenty about it. You said you accepted that but apparently not. I came to a different conclusion to you. How does that mean I want it to be true? That’s a serious thing to say. You’re going to have to do better, otherwise it looks like a cheap ad hominem because somebody doesn’t agree with you. Busted. You don’t think I know enough about it. You betrayed yourself quickly here. To you, there is only one correct conclusion and if it’s not yours, you assume ignorance or more nefarious motives (such as wanting it to be true for some odd reason).

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I said I had read plenty about it. You said you accepted that but apparently not. I came to a different conclusion to you. How does that mean I want it to be true? That’s a serious thing to say. You’re going to have to do better, otherwise it looks like a cheap ad hominem because somebody doesn’t agree with you. Busted. You don’t think I know enough about it. You betrayed yourself quickly.

In fairness, you called me a paedophile apologist before and said I was just as bad as him so, I'm not too bothered tbh.

I guess I just came to that conclusion because it's proved they lied in LN and now they've had their cases thrown out, for a third and final time and you seemingly can't accept that. Plus, (not you) the recent attacks on Culkin left a bit of sickening feeling in me. I guess all that made me come to that conclusion.

I am sorry if I was offensive or mistaken in saying that. Wasn't my attention. I'm not one to make false accusations
I probably got too emotive about it. My apologies

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

In fairness, you called me a paedophile apologist before and said I was just as bad as him so, I'm not too bothered tbh.

I guess I just came to that conclusion because it's proved they lied in LN and now they've had their cases thrown out, for a third and final time and you seemingly can't accept that. Plus, (not you) the recent attacks on Culkin left a bit of sickening feeling in me. I guess all that made me come to that conclusion.

I am sorry if I was offensive or mistaken in saying that. Wasn't my attention. I'm not one to make false accusations

That’s very debatable actually. You are baldly stating it as fact. It’s depressing to realise how far we still have to come with the reporting of sexual crimes when people are still so apparently oblivious to how difficult they are to prove. Everyone accepts this generally but Jackson is treated as a special case always where if a smoking gun isn’t found, we’re supposed to not suspect him anymore. He admitted to a deeply creepy act (the bed sharing). He settled his first case (and we’re to believe he had no choice but to - sure, Jan). These pesky facts won’t go away and can’t be explained away, no matter how much people want them to be. Would you settle if you knew you didn’t molest a child? I wouldn’t. And I’m far less powerful than Jackson was.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s very debatable actually. You are baldly stating it as fact. It’s depressing to realise how far we still have to come with the reporting of sexual crimes when people are still so apparently oblivious to how difficult they are to prove. Everyone accepts this generally but Jackson is treated as a special case always where if a smoking gun isn’t found, we’re supposed to not suspect him anymore. He admitted to a deeply creepy act (the bed sharing). He settled his first case (and we’re to believe he had no choice but to - sure, Jan). These pesky facts won’t go away and can’t be explained away, no matter how much people want them to be.

The settlement of the civil case in 1993 is perfectly explained. He had a choice and he made the wrong one, by his own admission.

And no, I'm not baldly stating it as a fact. It's an actual fact! I can give you the lies they told in it if you want (abused in a building that didn't exist being one of them) and the director was caught out in various interviews, where he had to back track. You don't need to change you story every deposition if you've been a victim.


Anyways, you have your beliefs, I have mine. Not much more to add

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

The settlement of the civil case in 1993 is perfectly explained. He had a choice and he made the wrong one, by his own admission.

And no, I'm not baldly stating it as a fact. It's an actual fact! I can give you the lies they told in it if you want (abused in a building that didn't exist being one of them) and the director was caught out in various interviews, where he had to back track. You don't need to change you story every deposition if you've been a victim.


Anyways, you have your beliefs, I have mine. Not much more to add

It is in its hole. :pac: Molesting children is one of the most reviled things to be accused of in western society. There’s not much that’s considered lower. Child murder, perhaps. Jackson accepted an inconclusive outcome for one of the worst crimes you can accused of? He made a “choice”? For anyone who hasn’t committed that crime, the choice is very clear.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It is in its hole. :pac: Molesting children is one of the most reviled things to be accused of in western society. There’s not much that’s considered lower. Child murder, perhaps. Jackson accepted an inconclusive outcome for one of the worst crimes you can accused of? He made a “choice”? For anyone who hasn’t committed that crime, the choice is very clear.

Settles a civil case in order to get the criminal case sped up, you zone in on that as a sign of guilt but ignore the fact two grand juries dismissed a criminal case due to no evidence?

OK...As I said, nothing more to add.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Aye, me neither. I just bristle when somebody suggests I’m hoping a heinous crime actually happened. I’m not even a true crime fan really. I think about the individuals in every show.

Sleeper12

Big Gerry wrote:

I don't understand how anyone could pay out Millions if they were innocent ?

Jacksons insurance company paid out & he had little say in the matter. You try stop your car insurance company from paying out because you weren't at fault. You can't. It's their call

lintdrummer

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Everyone accepts this generally but Jackson is treated as a special case always where if a smoking gun isn’t found, we’re supposed to not suspect him anymore. He admitted to a deeply creepy act (the bed sharing). He settled his first case (and we’re to believe he had no choice but to - sure, Jan). These pesky facts won’t go away and can’t be explained away, no matter how much people want them to be. Would you settle if you knew you didn’t molest a child? I wouldn’t. And I’m far less powerful than Jackson was.

You keep talking about facts that won't go away and that "we're supposed to not suspect him anymore", but where is the evidence?
And don't tell me it's that he admitted to sharing a bed with boys. We all know that act was weird and wrong, but there's no evidence that anything illegal actually happened. Why would he announce this to the world on more than one occasion if he thought he was incriminating himself?

As for the settlement in '93, you keep bringing that up. One thing that strikes me in all the interview footage of Jackson is that he didn't seem like the most mentally robust person. Fragile enough mind I'd say. Probably couldn't hack the stress of the potentially year long proceedings. Had the money to make the length of the ordeal much shorter, knowing that the criminal case would still go to court where his innocence could be proven.
That's leaving aside the fact that it's said it wasn't entirely his decision to settle anyway.

You have made up your mind that the man committed these crimes and you're trying to convince everyone else of the same. You may in time be proven right. But as of right now any court proceedings against him have failed to prove him guilty and much of what has been said by the accusers has been shown to be false.

Yes what he did was creepy but if we assume for a moment that it was innocent in nature then we really need to be looking at the parents of these kids who willingly let it happen. Clearly they saw opportunity in it, whether through extravagant gifts, a lavish lifestyle, opportunity to work with Jackson or by using his naivety to turn the situation on him and sue him. If these parents were ever concerned for their children's safety then surely there's no way they would have allowed them to spend any time with Jackson unsupervised, let alone stay the night with him.

sligeach

The "media" really are scum. No interest in this story in the lead-up to this verdict, or in promoting all all the previous times that Wade & James have been proven liars, in court and in public opinion. So the verdict comes out and oh how do we twist this?

"Michael Jackson Estate Gets Judge to Toss Wade Robson's Abuse Suit"

"Michael Jackson's Companies Had No Duty to Protect Boys: Judge"

Insinuate much? I'm not posting the links. They don't deserve the traffic.

I will post this, which is a follow-up to an earlier report.

Michael Jackson Absolved: Second Accusation of Molestation is Dismissed By Court in Final Ruling

https://www.showbiz411.com/2021/04/26/michael-jackson-absolved-second-accusation-of-molestation-is-dismissed-by-court-in-final-ruling

And if you know your history, then you'll know that Roger Friedman once upon a time was convinced Michael Jackson was guilty, like think of a female version of Diane Diamond(who is trash and a leech imo), that's how guilty he thought Michael was.

Big Gerry

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Jacksons insurance company paid out & he had little say in the matter. You try stop your car insurance company from paying out because you weren't at fault. You can't. It's their call

Normally insurance companies look for any excuse NOT to pay out.


When we are talking about millions I'd imagine they would be very reluctant to pay out the money unless they had no choice.

Big Gerry

Can anyone explain why Jacko kept a load of pictures of naked children ?



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653380/Michael-Jackson-s-secret-underage-sex-closet-Inside-raid-uncovered-King-Pop-s-extensive-collection-photos-featuring-naked-teenage-boys.html

sligeach

Big Gerry wrote: »

Can anyone explain why Jacko kept a load of pictures of naked children ?



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653380/Michael-Jackson-s-secret-underage-sex-closet-Inside-raid-uncovered-King-Pop-s-extensive-collection-photos-featuring-naked-teenage-boys.html

The Daily Mail? LMAO! 🤣 The bastions of journalism. Did I say bastions? I meant something else. I'm not clicking on that dirt. They were art books . You're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

https://amp.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/dok3yb/the_nude_boys_book_claim_is_absurd_and_makes_no/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

sligeach wrote: »

The Daily Mail? LMAO! The bastions of journalism. Did I say bastions? I meant something else. I'm not clicking on that dirt. They were art books . You're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

https://amp.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/dok3yb/the_nude_boys_book_claim_is_absurd_and_makes_no/

But apparently, www.showbiz411.com, that august publication, is a-ok with you? I suspect that any two bit site that backs you up is suddenly and conveniently a reliable source.

And as if you wouldn’t be all over a Daily Mail article if it backed you up.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But apparently, www.showbiz411.com, that august publication, is a-ok with you? I suspect that any two bit site that backs you up is suddenly and conveniently a reliable source.

And as if you wouldn’t be all over a Daily Mail article if it backed you up.

Was that daily mail article not the one pushed by Weinstein to draw away attention from himself?..He apparently had pushed MJ stories in the media a couple of times..

I vaguely remember when it came out and it was just weird..What, they found a hidden room and they're only mentioning it in the media now(2016)?..

MOR316

Big Gerry wrote: »

Can anyone explain why Jacko kept a load of pictures of naked children ?



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653380/Michael-Jackson-s-secret-underage-sex-closet-Inside-raid-uncovered-King-Pop-s-extensive-collection-photos-featuring-naked-teenage-boys.html

Three things...

1. It's been confirmed nothing of the kind was found. The Santa Barbara County confirmed this! In the state of California, it's a federal crime to possess such things that are considered child porn and it is a minimum of 8 years in prison...
How come none of this was used in the court case as evidence, if it was indeed true? Think about it...
There was a book found in his library, still in it's plastic wrapping, that had pictures of naked men, women, boys and girls. His finger prints weren't on any of the pages and it was signed by someone as a gift. The book is legal and is available in every library around the world. Also on Amazon UK and US. It is apparently a "famous" art book that was published years ago. Being that I am not an artist nor do I own a copy, I can't tell you much more than that.

2. There was an article published in 2018, in the New York Times, where a journalist admitted that Harvey Weinstein would plant stories about Jackson

3. The origins of the word "Jacko" comes from the name of a monkey which was used my Londoners as a racist term in the 19th century. "Jacko Monkey" toys were available in the UK until the 1980s...The Sun newspaper ran a competition in the 90s, when he was in Europe, "Spot the Jacko and we'll give you a Monkey"

Racism is bad except when it comes to Michael Jackson it seems...

EDIT: I just read that article and it even states it may not be true ffs Unreal

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But apparently, www.showbiz411.com, that august publication, is a-ok with you? I suspect that any two bit site that backs you up is suddenly and conveniently a reliable source.

And as if you wouldn’t be all over a Daily Mail article if it backed you up.

From what I know, it's a fan that writes for that website so that's obviously going to be biased.

Personally, couldn't be arsed with any of them. I worked as a journalist in my younger days, I worked with some journalists...Not for me thanks

Hamsterchops

Atoms for Peace wrote: »

Micky Jackson in trouble again.

More like Jackson's mickey in trouble again!

...if the accusations are to believede.

MOR316

Hamsterchops wrote: »

More like Jackson's mickey in trouble again!

...if the accusations are to believede.

2019 called, it wants its joke back.

(And it's pubs)

innuendo141

I don't know whether I'm surprised or just impressed that RTE have had the balls to stick to their no air-play stance on Jackson (on Radio 1 at least, I've heard him a good bit on RTE Gold).

I doubt that the tossing of the court case will change many opinions, but it does highlight how people took the documentary as fact without commenting on how the stories have changed since 2013 to back up each different court case. It's still not proof that nothing happened though.

Number Ones has actually been in the top 50 albums for the last while aswell it seems, so the whole RTE thing is silly at this stage. You'd say something if they actually were playing him and people were going spare. Instead, there's only 45 albums selling better than it as of last week's charts.

Edit: accuracy

Ashbourne hoop

innuendo141 wrote: »

I don't know whether I'm surprised or just impressed that RTE have had the balls to stick to their no air-play stance on Jackson (on Radio 1 at least, I've heard him a good bit on RTE Gold).

I happened to walk past the kitchen last week when Tubridy was doing a quiz and for a "What is this song about?" question, he played some random cover of Ben by some girl. I get that it's all down to the choice of the presenter, but really? I doubt that the tossing of the court case will change many opinions, but it does highlight how people took the documentary as fact without commenting on how the stories have changed since 2013 to back up each different court case. It's still not proof that nothing happened though.

Number Ones has actually been in the top 50 albums for the last while aswell it seems, so the whole RTE thing is silly at this stage. You'd say something if they actually were playing him and people were going spare. Instead, there's only 45 albums selling better than it as of last week's charts.

Ray D'Arcy made a big thing about not playing Jackson songs after LN, but he'll jump on any bandwagon.

Ash.J.Williams

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Just watched this excellent doc on amazon prime:

Square one : Michael Jackson

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11033952/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Utterly brilliant and I'd challenge anyone after watching it how you think Michael Jackson abused children.

the last screenshots are compelling:

- research shows the average pedophile abuses approx 250 children

- michael jackson has 5 accusers

- none of them went to the police

- all of them went to civil lawyers seeking monetary compensation

I dispute your average paedo average child tally

Ash.J.Williams

innuendo141 wrote: »

I don't know whether I'm surprised or just impressed that RTE have had the balls to stick to their no air-play stance on Jackson (on Radio 1 at least, I've heard him a good bit on RTE Gold).

I happened to walk past the kitchen last week when Tubridy was doing a quiz and for a "What is this song about?" question, he played some random cover of Ben by some girl. I get that it's all down to the choice of the presenter, but really? I doubt that the tossing of the court case will change many opinions, but it does highlight how people took the documentary as fact without commenting on how the stories have changed since 2013 to back up each different court case. It's still not proof that nothing happened though.

Number Ones has actually been in the top 50 albums for the last while aswell it seems, so the whole RTE thing is silly at this stage. You'd say something if they actually were playing him and people were going spare. Instead, there's only 45 albums selling better than it as of last week's charts.

Was that last Friday week? That was Michael Jackson

innuendo141

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Was that last Friday week? That was Michael Jackson

Whatever day it was it 100% wasn't him, either studio recording or live.

Ash.J.Williams

innuendo141 wrote: »

Whatever day it was it 100% wasn't him, either studio recording or live.

If it was a quiz at the end of last Friday weeks show it definitely was mj

innuendo141

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

If it was a quiz at the end of last Friday weeks show it definitely was mj

Fair enough, post edited now.

Ash.J.Williams

innuendo141 wrote: »

Fair enough, post edited now.

He did sound like a girl though

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I dispute your average paedo average child tally

Indeed. Many are nowhere that number, I’d say.

As for the number of MJ accusers, this is often said by MJ supporters - “Why haven’t MORE people come forward?”. It’s hard for any victim of child abuse to come forward, even if their abuser isn’t famous. People who accuse MJ have their characters absolutely destroyed. There’s no perfect victim but to these mouth-breathers, if you’ve cheated on your girlfriend in your adult life or whatever, that apparently means you couldn’t possibly have been abused as a child. :rolleyes: Who’d put themselves forward for that? People say easy money is being looked for. To me, it seems like the hardest money you’d ever earn.