Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

He was there all the time was he? He was at every sleep over?

He is quite entitled to give his experience, but that has no bearing on what may, or may not, have happened.

Of course it has, in lieu of any actual evidence. What more can people on the internet who have a passing interest in the case go on? He died in 2009.

It echoes what an awful lot of people have said about Jackson, including Robson, so it is not just Corey or a one off factual experience.

What do you think of Robsons "memories" just coinciding with the Jackson estate booting him off the gravy train?

What did he say - he didn't realize anally raping a child was wrong until he held his child in his hands, he was 31. :rolleyes:

He was also financially fooked and the wife was about to boot him.

Does that pass the "smell test" to you?

ohnonotgmail

retro:electro wrote: »

Good point. It’s a well documented fact at this stage that the CC’s victims were largely vulnerable children, from broken homes with a myriad of social issues to exploit. The children of the “pillars of the community” or from families with Garda connections were by and large left alone. Corey and Culkin were already established stars in their own right.
Why is it so hard for people to believe that groomers can be methodically selective in the type of child they choose to groom, often choosing to surround themselves with many, but victimising only the most vulnerable.

Is that true for MJ? the children who claim he abused them were not from broken homes. They were there with their parents permission.

ElBastardo1

Watched the first part last night and my overall feeling coming away from it was he's guilty. There is never real hard evidence in historical rape/ paedophile trials but you can only listen to the testimonies and take them on merit. One of the lads was giving a description of being abused when he was 7, and I just cannot fathom how anyone could say the words "he sucked my 7 year old penis" and say it, if it wasn't true. The real problem is people still treat MJ like he is a god and how he could do no wrong, they'll never believe any bad press. He definitely showed signs that he had a way of grooming the kids, and how he isolated them. He was a predator, he was clever and he was disturbed. This may have been linked to him being abused himself physically and mentally as a child. The absued lads parents came off the worst though in the first part, knowing what he had done to their child, how could they smile and describe the first time they met him and almost reminisce about it. They seen $$$ signs and they basically pimped out their child. 4 hours after meeting him the child is sleeping in his bedroom? i mean FFS who does that? I know things are different now, but i'm of a similar age to the lads, and there is no way my parents would have allowed that, even for millions of dollars.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

Why is it so hard for people to believe that groomers can be methodically selective in the type of child they choose to groom, often choosing to surround themselves with many, but victimising only the most vulnerable.

I can believe that for sure, but doesn't mean I need to believe Chandler, Arviso and Robson.

Why is it so hard to believe that these people made up allegations either for personal gain or the gain of their opportunistic parents?

On one side you've got compelling evidence that their stories are false. On the other you've got people who seem to ignore the evidence and base opinions on "creepy behaviour", being a "freak" and the fact that the accusers are from vunerable families.

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

On the other you've got people who seem to ignore the evidence and base opinions on "creepy behaviour", being a "freak" and the fact that the accusers are from vunerable families.

It’s a lot more than just “creepy behaviour” and you know it. Just because you’re choosing to ignore more red flags waving than at a bull fighting convention doesn’t mean you get to downplay what, thankfully, most people see as a systematic and relentless pattern of behaviour and way of living that showed a disturbingly unhealthy and inappropriate interest in young pre- pubescent boys.

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it has, in lieu of any actual evidence. What more can people on the internet who have a passing interest in the case go on? He died in 2009.

It echoes what an awful lot of people have said about Jackson, including Robson, so it is not just Corey or a one off factual experience.

What do you think of Robsons "memories" just coinciding with the Jackson estate booting him off the gravy train?

What did he say - he didn't realize anally raping a child was wrong until he held his child in his hands, he was 31. :rolleyes:

He was also financially fooked and the wife was about to boot him.

Does that pass the "smell test" to you?

So do you accept that Cory was not there all the time and cannot possibly be taken as ruling out the possibility that he was treated differently than others?

In terms of echoes, you can say that these two men are giving experiences that echoes others as well, so not sure which we should go with.

In terms of Robsons memories, I have no idea. But what I will say is that there is plenty of evidence of people that were abused that stayed close to the accuser for years. I personally do not understand it, but it is clear that it happens. And in in direct terms of the gravy train, well maybe the continued payments or access it gave them made it feel that coming out gave them too much to lose. Again, it is not something I fully understand having, thankfully never been in that position, but these people lived through (if true) terrible ordeals and will have blamed themselves in many respects. Getting payments etc from the abuser if a form of self justification for not coming out.

He didn't say that, he said that he didn't realise the authority and power that an adult had over a child. But the abuser (not just MJ but across the board) will make it out to be partly the childs fault, they led them on, it was what they both wanted, or in extreme cases that telling anyone would result in terrible consequences for them and their family. It is obvious that you don't understand the power that the abusers have over their victims. In some cases, the victim will actually profess love for the abuser and appear to willing return to the abuser.

In terms of financial ruin, and the breakdown of his relationship, well it could easily be that as everything around him crumbled, as the facade he had built up to block out the memories fell apart, he was forced to face his real demons. The money (career) and other relationships could not hide the truth that needed to be faced up to.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s a lot more than just “creepy behaviour” and you know it. Just because you’re choosing to ignore more red flags waving than at a bull fighting convention doesn’t mean you get to downplay what, thankfully, most people see as a systematic and relentless pattern of behaviour and way of living that showed a disturbingly unhealthy and inappropriate interest in young pre- pubescent boys.

I've said multiple times that his behaviour was highly inappropriate and I don't for a second condone it.

That doesn't make it criminal however. And again, I'm not ruling out the possibility that there was something criminal, I'm just saying that I don't believe Chandler, Arviso or Robson and so I question anybody using those as examples of criminal behaviour as to me they were completely fabricated.

If I downplayed the behaviour I apologise, I'm simply questioning why people would ignore the evidence of Chandler, Arviso and Robson lying unless it's willful ignorance so they can push the guilty agenda.

If you're so confident that he did something wrong, there should be believable witnesses somewhere

retro:electro

Leroy42 wrote: »

In terms of Robsons memories, I have no idea. But what I will say is that there is plenty of evidence of people that were abused that stayed close to the accuser for years.

From what I’ve seen of the doc, Robson is the first person to call himself out for being untruthful so people calling him a liar aren’t really saying anything he hasn’t already acknowledged himself. Which is why the documentary is so important. It examines the psychological conditioning of grooming and all it’s manifestations.
Also maybe the irony is lost on those who are calling him a perjurer as they are saying he lied about Michael not being a predator :pac:

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

In terms of Robsons memories, I have no idea. But what I will say is that there is plenty of evidence of people that were abused that stayed close to the accuser for years. I personally do not understand it, but it is clear that it happens.

Have you examples as extreme a shift as Robson?

TomSweeney

I wonder what the story with MacCauley Culkin saying its all bullsh1t and he never was into any of that is ?
Maybe MJ was afraid to mess with him as he was perhaps the biggest child star in the world at that time ?

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

And in in direct terms of the gravy train, well maybe the continued payments or access it gave them made it feel that coming out gave them too much to lose. Again, it is not something I fully understand having, thankfully never been in that position, but these people lived through (if true) terrible ordeals and will have blamed themselves in many respects. Getting payments etc from the abuser if a form of self justification for not coming out.

He didn't say that, he said that he didn't realise the authority and power that an adult had over a child. But the abuser (not just MJ but across the board) will make it out to be partly the childs fault, they led them on, it was what they both wanted, or in extreme cases that telling anyone would result in terrible consequences for them and their family. It is obvious that you don't understand the power that the abusers have over their victims. In some cases, the victim will actually profess love for the abuser and appear to willing return to the abuser.

In terms of financial ruin, and the breakdown of his relationship, well it could easily be that as everything around him crumbled, as the facade he had built up to block out the memories fell apart, he was forced to face his real demons. The money (career) and other relationships could not hide the truth that needed to be faced up to.

Yeah.

But isn't the most logical reason just money?

showpony1

TomSweeney wrote: »

I wonder what the story with MacCauley Culkin saying its all bullsh1t and he never was into any of that is ?
Maybe MJ was afraid to mess with him as he was perhaps the biggest child star in the world at that time ?

MJ still looked quite normal during the time he was hanging around Macaulay Culkin (Bad era) - how much of a bearing do you think how MJ ended up looking by the end had on how much people are sure he is guilty?

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Have you examples as extreme a shift as Robson?

There is a documentary on Netflix called "Abducted in plan sight" or something which covers this.

But we have multiple persons that were abused by priests in the CC that continued to be altar boys. That continued to go to church. That it took them years to tell anyone for fear that they wouldn't be believed.

We even have had cases in Ireland were siblings were being abused and never told each other until they later in life started speaking out and the dots were joined by others.

reg114

The lure of fame and the draw of money is something quite extraordinary. Jackson had both to the nth degree and it bamboozled so many people like a sirens call to sailors. Rational thought and commonsense simply went out the window. People from all walks of life behaved like sycophants around Jackson dispensing of normal social mores. Parents it seemed prostituted their own children to ingratiate themselves with the prince of pop so they might get a slice of the pie.

Jackson reminds me a lot of Saville. A seasoned abuser in plain sight, using his celebrity and status to gain access to children with pathetic ease. The more the abuser gets away with it the more brazen he gets. In the end while both Jackson and Saville were accused of interfering with children when alive, neither were penalised for their crimes.

Make no mistake, sleeping in the same bed as children is never normal. Jackson hid behind the tired excuse that he was misunderstood and had an abnormal upbringing that robbed him of his own childhood, hence the fixation, but it simply doesnt wash with me.

Why pay 20 million dollars to settle a case out of court if you're an innocent man ?
All these victims were coincidentally young boys, no girls, that itself is odd and is characteristic of many paedophiles.

This has destroyed Jackson's legacy because you simply cannot separate the paedophile from the pop prince. Yes he was a brilliant entertainer with some amazing songs but at the end of the day he was just a singer. Its not like he cured cancer. The level of devotion he still receives from his delusional fans is beyond logic and tantamount to a cult-like following. It is also deeply offensive and damaging to victims of child abuse in general.

You never ever hear Gary Glitter on the radio anymore for good reason, perhaps we'll hear less of Jackson from here on too.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is a documentary on Netflix called "Abducted in plan sight" or something which covers this.

But we have multiple persons that were abused by priests in the CC that continued to be altar boys. That continued to go to church. That it took them years to tell anyone for fear that they wouldn't be believed.

We even have had cases in Ireland were siblings were being abused and never told each other until they later in life started speaking out and the dots were joined by others.

Yeah, perfectly aware of all that.

But that's not what I asked though.

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah.

But isn't the most logical reason just money?

That they are coming out now for money or that they remained silent for so long for money?

8-10

It's incredibly coincidental to me that Gavin Arviso's mother Janet has been proven to have coerced her kid to lie about a sexual assault for financial gain prior to meeting Michael Jackson in the JC Penney case, along with badgering other celebrities for handouts like Chris Tucker and Jay Leno, and then running an ad in the paper for donations for Gavin's cancer treatment despite having insurance that paid for it all, and then not declaring that money and guilty of welfare fraud.....and then having Gavin's MJ case in 2005....?

Can you imagine if you exploit your child's condition for financial gain, have a pattern of defrauding celebrities and institutions for money, make false sexual assault accusations and make your child lie about it to authorities...and then, after all that your kid happens to find himself abused by one of the wealthiest celebrities in the country that you can then sue? It's like a sick version of the boy who cries wolf.

I'm amazed at the credibility some posters here give to the Arviso's given everything that happened. It just doesn't make sense. The timeline doesn't make sense.

Leroy42

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, perfectly aware of all that.

But that's not what I asked though.

Sorry, what were you asking me, I think I misunderstood the question.

valoren

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

He was accused in 1993. If that was true or not, he still continued to have boys sleep over. Wouldn't you stop having them over if you were innocent as you wouldn't want to be in that situation again? It's more like he had a problem and couldn't stop.

He can have no sympathy from anyone thinking rationally. I think the problem with Jackson was that he'd achieved a level of wealth, fame, power and influence that he through delusion felt that he was infallible. You'd think that the 1993 case would have been a reality check but I think he was deluded enough to think he could simply pay his way out of it in future. Combine his upbringing and merge that with his status and it's no surprise he went off the cliff doolally. He was peerless, surrounded himself with sycophantic yes men and rapidly lost touch with any grounded or normal reality. In his delusions, he pressed the cult like idea that if we love children then we should, just like he does, share a bed with them. Whenever the wild inappropriateness of this was pointed out to him he doubled down on his opinions sealing his fate. That he shared a bed predominantly with prepubescent boys understandably solidified the suspicions. He openly, brazenly, hung himself out to the wolves and we get subjected to extremes at both ends i.e. those who shared a bed and are adamant nothing sexual happened, those who claimed they were abused and there was failure to convict and in the case of this documentary, one who claimed nothing sexual happened and then claimed they were abused. The ever present constant here is Jackson's personality; philanthropic, empathetic, naive, ignorant, stupid, brazen, indignant and downright weird.

Boggles

Leroy42 wrote: »

That they are coming out now for money or that they remained silent for so long for money?

They gave glowing references until they were fooked off the gravy train.

Then they tried to get a book deal and couldn't and then went on to sue for 100s of millions of dollars.

The example doesn't even have to be that extreme.

SusieBlue

I wonder would people be so dismissive and forgiving if MJ preferred to "platonically" share a bed with little girls, instead of little boys?

valoren

Boggles wrote: »

They gave glowing references until they were fooked off the gravy train.

Then they tried to get a book deal and couldn't and then went on to sue for 100s of millions of dollars.

The example doesn't even have to be that extreme.

Testified, in his early 20's, in 2005 under oath that nothing sexual happened with Jackson. He was a star witness in the defence and after a grilling during cross examination from the prosecution he exonerated Jackson. 7 years later, knowing that he'd perjured himself, when the statute of limitations expired and he was longer liable for perjury he sued the estate and it was thrown out due to his understandable lack of credibility.

showpony1

valoren wrote: »

Testified, in his early 20's, in 2005 under oath that nothing sexual happened with Jackson. He was a star witness in the defence and after a grilling during cross examination from the prosecution he exonerated Jackson. 7 years later, knowing that he'd perjured himself, when the statute of limitations expired and he was longer liable for perjury he sued the estate and it was thrown out due to his understandable lack of credibility.

So is the consensus Robson was paid to give the defense in 2005 & was lying in 2005 or is lying now.

Boggles

showpony1 wrote: »

So is the consensus Robson was paid to give the defense in 2005 & was lying in 2005 or is lying now.

You don't put someone on the stand as your first key witness against a hostile prosecution if that person had been anally raped by the defendant.

Doesn't happen.

There were literally dozens of children that could have been picked.

It's too farcical to believe.

retro:electro

If people have an issue with the victims suing his estate for compensation after years of abuse then they should have an issue with the justice system as a whole which was set up to assist victims with redress in such events. The system is there to be used, so don’t blame and shame those who decide to use it.

Boggles

The redress system is there for actual victims, not pretend ones.

valoren

showpony1 wrote: »

So is the consensus Robson was paid to give the defense in 2005 & was lying in 2005 or is lying now.

If he was paid then this would leave a paper trail. If he was abused as he claims and was being harangued to lie he would be very silly to not have demanded a "never-have-to-worry-about-money-ever-again" sum to do so. If he could show he was paid to lie then he would have credibility. I don't think he is claiming he was paid to lie but rather conveying that he was brainwashed, manipulated and coerced into it. Surely as a young adult he would have known what supposedly happened was criminal, bang him up in prison stuff and would have conscientiously used the platform he was given to convict a pedophile who anally raped him.

Leroy42

valoren wrote: »

If he was paid then this would leave a paper trail. If he was abused as he claims and was being harangued to lie he would be very silly to not have demanded a "never-have-to-worry-about-money-ever-again" sum to do so. I don't think he is claiming he was paid to lie but rather conveying that he was brainwashed, manipulated into it. Surely as a young adult he would have known what supposedly happened was criminal, bang him up in prison stuff and would have conscientiously used the platform he was given to convict a pedophile.

All true, yet at the same time we are expected to believe that MJ wasn't aware that any of this was wrong because he was damaged and really only a child.

Seems one rule for MJ and another for everyone else.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

The redress system is there for actual victims, not pretend ones.

And thankfully, you do not have any authority on deciding who is or isn’t genuine.

I know that doesn’t fly with whatever you read on “MJisbaeforlifexoxoxo.blogspot.com or whatever debukned site you were caught citing from earlier in the thread, but it’s the truth.

turbbo

What was he doing with kids in his bed? - he's a nonce! end of. Wither these guys are looking for money or not. The fact remains he was seriously shady - what is unbelievable is he got away with it.