Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123

suicide_circus wrote: »

jimmy saville was never found guilty in a court of law

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

Mr.Wemmick

suicide_circus wrote: »

jimmy saville was never found guilty in a court of law

I am trying to count up how many priests didn't either.. but I keep losing count.

I mean, how did they manage to get the extensive Murphy Report written up and seen as an authority and comprehensive analysis when most of the priests were dead and buried with so few prosecutions? :rolleyes:

suicide_circus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

maybe because MJ is still venerated as a musical massiah? maybe he didnt molest quite as many as JS?

dark crystal

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

How many accusations are enough?


Not all paedophiles operate in the same way. Some are perpertrators of chance; they'll stick their hand down an unwilling child's pants or up a skirt.

Some play the long game and groom their victims, abusing them over a longer period of time.


Comparing one paedophile's actions to another is pointless. The number of victims doesn't mean anything.

PokeHerKing

sligeach wrote:

You know what the sad thing is? More people might make up stories now. Look at how this has all gone down. You've got 2 liars who've previously testified that nothing ever happened, have lied, changed their story and all the rest. Look at how the Leaving Neverland mockumentary has manipulated people. Then there's the whole MeToo movement. Come forward and you're automatically believed.

So essentially no matter what potentially comes out in the future they're lying and MJs innocent?

You give the lynch mobs ammo to dismiss any doubt as just fanatical fanboys.

ceadaoin.

Jesus, this thread is getting more depressing. No wonder groomers and child abusers get away with it. Jacksons behaviour goes against every single rule for child safeguarding. I hope some of his defenders on here would have more cop on if something similar was happening to a child in their lives.

Have a look at Abducted in Plain Sight on Netflix to see how grooming works and how extreme it can be. I see many similarities with Michael Jackson . Those parents allowed a man to share a bed with their daughter, also because according to him it would help him with his "childhood issues". It didn't turn out well. An adult desperate to share a bed with a child who is unrelated to them never usually does. He had the girl convinced of the most outlandish stuff to justify his abuse. She also thought she loved him.

fryup wrote: »

we're not talking about your local nonce

we're talking about michael jackson the most famous pop star in the world he had thousands of kids visiting neverland over the years..he was open about it...he's been dead 10 years and yet we had next to zero allegations against him

whats to stop people coming forward if anything inappropriate happened

Whether you believe he abused them it or not, it's Jackson's own behaviour that left him open to such accusations. Plenty of other rich and famous people have acted bizarrely in life and had lots of money to be had and yet never been accused. It's just poor Michael Jackson who is targeted in this way. No ones going after prince are they?

McFly85

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Anyone can make an allegation about anything. I could make an allegation about Mother Theresa for example.

You could! And if Mother Teresa openly spoke about sleeping unsupervised in the same room with children, lived in a theme park, cultivated a personality of someone who is a child rather than cares for them, all of those facts about the accused would probably give people reason to believe it could have happened.

ToddyDoody

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Jesus, this thread is getting more depressing. No wonder groomers and child abusers get away with it. Jacksons behaviour goes against every single rule for child safeguarding. I hope some of his defenders on here would have more cop on if something similar was happening to a child in their lives.

I was looking at him live in concert over a few drinks some weeks back and it just occurred to me that there was a pain in parts of his singing that snacked a bit, to me, of a repressed unlawful sexual desire.

Paedophilia (we'll assume he was for the convenience of my argument) seems to be a compulsive disorder. Society needs to be protected and paedophiles need genuine help. I don't think there's any prescribed means of treating the condition as far as I know?

It wasnt me123

I haven't read all of this thread but I am very much on the side of MJ being a paedo - but then I believed that from the first public outcry about him in the 1990's. I haven't listened to his music in years and would turn the dial if it come on the radio.

That said, how do we know there are only 4 people who have come forward and received payouts? There could be hundreds, they've been so well paid off and are getting on with their lives that they don't want to be labelled as a "victim".

I believe MJ is a nonce anyways, but I bet there has been more than that 1 payoff. If there is no evidence you don't offer $20 million for a lie.

micks_address

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To be clear I am talking about the totality of allegations from the late 70s until his ignominious death in 2009

Anyone can make an allegation about anything. I could make an allegation about Mother Theresa for example.

You need credibility to be believed and not have some ulterior motive.

To me Robson comes across as an obsessive MJ fan who couldn't cope with the fact MJ and later the estate turned their backs on him. And if MJ was such a compulsive paedophile why would he turn his back on them but not abuse other kids he befriended subsequently.

Some people are intent on attributing malevolent motives to everything MJ did. He or his companies should be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/mother-teresa-adoption-selling-babies-4132482-Jul2018/?amp=1

Mr.Wemmick

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I was looking at him live in concert over a few drinks some weeks back and it just occurred to me that there was a pain in parts of his singing that snacked a bit, to me, of a repressed unlawful sexual desire.

Paedophilia (we'll assume he was for the convenience of my argument) seems to be a compulsive disorder. Society needs to be protected and paedophiles need genuine help. I don't think there's any prescribed means of treating the condition as far as I know?

Yep, agree, he sang raw, like a man.. not a little kid, a full grown man with grit, vocal punches with hormones and desire.. he had the whole emotional range in there. That's why he was successful. You can't fake that.

But yet, he was naive, like a child with total innocence and just loved hanging out with kids. It's beyond ridiculous.. 'tis no wonder this thread is gone to sh!t.

A grown man should not be hanging out with kids to the extent he was.

ceadaoin.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Jackson and lawyers wanted to fight it. The insurance company didn't. The courtroom was the right place to fight it.

Can I post this again? It seems to get ignored everytime.

What one of Jackson's own lawyers said:

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side

Also from this article

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations

Michael Jackson suffered from the skin discoloration disease vitiligo. Jordie Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings.

This journalist has been claiming this in several articles since the time of the Jordy Chandler settlement. In 25 years not once has she been sued by Jackson or his estate. Don't you think they would do something if they could prove it's false?

hetuzozaho

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Anyone can make an allegation about anything. I could make an allegation about Mother Theresa for example.

Think herself might be a bad example. Or maybe you are a Jackson and Theresa fan

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No I'm assuming that the abuse has actually happened in this scenario and therefore he is telling the truth. Therefore, it is not speculation it is the truth which makes the allegations of abuse subsequently facts because it actually happened.

Where as in the case against MJ it is all speculation and no truth because there is no evidence to support the allegations.

And what evidence does your son have other than his word.... speculation? You've taken an illogical position here, you've taken your sons word with no evidence, plain and simple.

So court verdicts mean fcuk all too then, seeing as nonce Bob would be viewed as "not guilty", even though you know better?

LessOutragePlz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And what evidence does your son have other than his word.... speculation? You've taken an illogical position here, you've taken your sons word with no evidence, plain and simple.

So court verdicts mean fcuk all too then, seeing as nonce Bob would be viewed as "not guilty", even though you know better?

Did you read the part of my post where I said I'm assuming that the abuse actually happened or did you deliberately ignore it?

Therefore it can be proven to be true with his testimony.

This isn't the case with the allegations against MJ because they can't be proven to be true.

Irish Guitarist

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Did you read the part of my post where I said I'm assuming that the abuse actually happened or did you deliberately ignore it?

Therefore it can be proven to be true with his testimony.

This isn't the case with the allegations against MJ because they can't be proven to be true.

And what happens if you can't prove it true, like most can't, despite it happening? Do court verdicts on such matters hold much weight then, if nonce bob got off for example?

LessOutragePlz

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Did you read the part of my post where I said I'm assuming that the abuse actually happened or did you deliberately ignore it?

Therefore it can be proven to be true with his testimony.

This isn't the case with the allegations against MJ because they can't be proven to be true.

This post makes absolutely no sense.

joe40

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

suicide_circus wrote: »

jimmy saville was never found guilty in a court of law

He also had hundreds of accusers. And was a particularly nasty piece of work who intimidated people when alive. When dead victims felt safe and believed.
I'd imagine Jackson was in contact with a similar number of children as Saville. So why not the hundreds coming forward? Why less than a handful of accusers some of whom have lied in the past?

You're going to persist in this line of reasoning.
If he didn't abuse hundreds it is somehow evidence he didn't abuse anyone....
You seem like an intelligent person surely you can see the fallacy in your logic.
Whatever you think about Jackson that is up to you, but there is no playbook or set of rules that all abusers adhere to.
Some enjoy the pain they inflict, some think they are doing no harm and are in a consensual relationship.
It is all abuse and all very damaging but also very different.
It is quite possible for an abuser to be in contact with loads of children but only abuse a few.

suicide_circus

joe40 wrote: »

It is quite possible for an abuser to be in contact with loads of children but only abuse a few.

he was a busy man, didnt have time to molest them all

LessOutragePlz

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And what happens if you can't prove it true, like most can't, despite it happening? Do court verdicts on such matters hold much weight then, if nonce bob got off for example?

Yes the court verdict still holds wait.

In your world everyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty.

That would be a great world to live in wouldn't it.

The Golden Miller

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes the court verdict still holds wait.

In your world everyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty.

That would be a great world to live in wouldn't it.

So it carries weight for nonce bob too then?

blanch152

The Golden Miller wrote: »

But you don't know whether your son's a liar, other than your own speculation to choose not to see him as a liar. Kinda similar to how you berate others for choosing to believe those speaking out about Jackson, no? And further more, what evidence would there be to suggest Bob the nonse is a paedophile? He only like's sleeping with kids because his childhood was robbed and the court found him not guilty? So he's not guilty then surely? Seems like you'd change your tune if this "speculation" was to come closer to home. Hypocrite one might say

It is not an apt comparison.

There are about 20 people in my life that I would be confident that if they were telling me a story of abuse, I would be able to tell whether it was true or not. That would include my children.

For the rest of the world, including many close friends, I wouldn't be sure. For someone in a television documentary, I wouldn't have a clue.

The Golden Miller

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not an apt comparison.

There are about 20 people in my life that I would be confident that if they were telling me a story of abuse, I would be able to tell whether it was true or not. That would include my children.

For the rest of the world, including many close friends, I wouldn't be sure. For someone in a television documentary, I wouldn't have a clue.

I agree with you for once. But when we bring up circumstantial evidence in relation to the Jackson case, the poster I'm responding to continually wheels out the "not guilty" verdict as if it's beyond doubt. At best he has no idea

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

is_that_so wrote: »

I've continually stated my problem with this type of documentary, It has a agenda and makes no apology for it. So yeah that's really not my thing and I've no problem passing on it. I also question how someone's sense of "understanding" can be reset by four hours of programming. Uneducated means no learning, you mean uninformed unless there's a pious high-horse thing at work here.

You are uneducated on the programme itself. If you haven’t seen it, that’s indisputable. You can’t possibly critique it. A trailer isn’t enough, no matter what the series, film or documentary. The trailer lets you decide whether to watch the programme but you absolutely cannot critique something you haven’t seen more than very brief snippets of, especially as trailers are often a bit misleading.

There’s a reason why people look foolish when they try to get banned a film or TV show or documentary they haven’t seen. People are rightfully dismissive.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think people keep missing the point about balance in the documentary.
Jackson came into contact with hundreds if not thousands of children in his life. Several have been publicly adament he disn't lay a finger on them. So why didn't the director interview just one? Just a single counter argument or viewpoint in 4 hours. Just one. Instead he put on 4 hours of intereviews with admitted and proven liars.

We know Robson testified in MJ’s favour at the 2005 trial.

Where has James Safechuck been proven a liar? He testified in favour of MJ as a child but not as an adult.

You said liars. Plural. Calling James Safechuck a proven liar is a strong statement. What are you basing that on? When did he admit lying?

Mr.Wemmick

Michael Jackson's album sales have been bumped up in the UK charts since the release of the documentary.

I have to admit, I have been listening to Off The Wall on YT and watched the weird Bashir documentary, as I never really watched it first time round.

There's no taking it away from the man, he was a great music performer in his day.

Boggles

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You said liars. Plural. Calling James Safechuck a proven liar is a strong statement. What are you basing that on? When did he admit lying?

When he declared under oath that Jackson and his lawyers threatened him to testify in 2005.

That didn't happen, because it couldn't happen.

The trial was basically over it had more or less collapsed and the Judge stated no more witnesses.

But he wants us to believe that Jackson and his lawyers were threatening to put yet another hostile witness on the stand that he had "abused" when he didn't have to or couldn't anyway.



Unless of course there is or you have a plausible explanation for that?

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Calling James Safechuck a proven liar is a strong statement. What are you basing that on? When did he admit lying?

Proof seems to have a different meaning for the Jackson defenders depending on who they are applying it to.

Gimme A Pound

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.