Micky Jackson in trouble again

mcmoustache · 05-03-2019 03:32PM

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah you really really have to think what their motivation might have been....

I'm not defending the parents at all here.

They allowed their kids to go to bed with a grown man. If I was just a little more cynical, I could believe that some may even have been whoring out their kids with the expectation of some cash.

I mean, would anyone here with kids let their kids sleep in the bed of grown man? Would the man's wealth and fame come into your decision making process?

8-10 · 05-03-2019 03:41PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'm not defending the parents at all here.

They allowed their kids to go to bed with a grown man. If I was just a little more cynical, I could believe that some may even have been whoring out their kids with the expectation of some cash.

I firmly believe, in the cases of Chandler and Arviso, that the parents involved were knowingly allowing their kids into a vunerable position to extort cash. The evidence supports that.

I'm not sure however, that they believed anything was actually going on. The fact that you have to drug your own kid with sodium pentathol to get him to 'admit' something is suspicious as hell, it's known to make you loquacious, highly suggestible and easily led.

mcmoustache · 05-03-2019 04:06PM

8-10 wrote: »

I firmly believe, in the cases of Chandler and Arviso, that the parents involved were knowingly allowing their kids into a vunerable position to extort cash. The evidence supports that.

I'm not sure however, that they believed anything was actually going on. The fact that you have to drug your own kid with sodium pentathol to get him to 'admit' something is suspicious as hell, it's known to make you loquacious, highly suggestible and easily led.

I don't disagree with anything you said there.

But I still haven't heard anything that would convince me that there is an innocent explanation for bringing children into his bed and his self identification as Jesus or Peter Pan just isn't enough.

Galwayguy35 · 05-03-2019 04:21PM

8-10 wrote: »

I firmly believe, in the cases of Chandler and Arviso, that the parents involved were knowingly allowing their kids into a vunerable position to extort cash. The evidence supports that.

I'm not sure however, that they believed anything was actually going on. The fact that you have to drug your own kid with sodium pentathol to get him to 'admit' something is suspicious as hell, it's known to make you loquacious, highly suggestible and easily led.

So do you believe Jackson is innocent and his accusers are lying?

8-10 · 05-03-2019 04:41PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So do you believe Jackson is innocent and his accusers are lying?

I believe Chandler and Arviso were lying, yes. I actually think there's no real question that they were. I also believe Wade Robson is lying, although I will caveat I haven't seen the contents of the documentary. I do not have enough information on the other accuser to comment.

I'm not for one minute excusing the extremely inappropriate behaviour of sharing a bedroom with these kids, nor am I saying that them lying means he's innocent of other crimes

But I certainly think that the 1993 and 2005 cases were built on fabricated stories and I think that makes it harder to believe others, which is unfortunate, but to me it looks as though Wade Robson is looking to profit off the latest accusations and there is enough in what I know so far to make me suspicious.

Do you believe Chandler and Arviso were both completely truthful?

mcmoustache · 05-03-2019 04:49PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So do you believe Jackson is innocent and his accusers are lying?

It's actually likely that some of them are and that some others were exaggerating.

Any parent who lets their kids sleep with a grown man has some questions to answer. I would be interested in knowing if they were being given money/payment to let MJ sleep with their kids.

If they were being paid, it may well be that some of them changed their mind about the molestation after the payments stopped.

This is speculation of course but I just find it hard to get my head around why a parent would lend their kid to a grownup for the purposes of sleeping with them. And if money was involved, then the situation looks much, much worse.

Galwayguy35 · 05-03-2019 05:01PM

8-10 wrote: »

I believe Chandler and Arviso were lying, yes. I actually think there's no real question that they were. I also believe Wade Robson is lying, although I will caveat I haven't seen the contents of the documentary. I do not have enough information on the other accuser to comment.

I'm not for one minute excusing the extremely inappropriate behaviour of sharing a bedroom with these kids, nor am I saying that them lying means he's innocent of other crimes

But I certainly think that the 1993 and 2005 cases were built on fabricated stories and I think that makes it harder to believe others, which is unfortunate, but to me it looks as though Wade Robson is looking to profit off the latest accusations and there is enough in what I know so far to make me suspicious.

Do you believe Chandler and Arviso were both completely truthful?

TBH I thought Arviso was in it for the money but I don't believe all the boys who made accusations against him are lying.

It's just not normal for a grown man to share a bed with kids who were staying with him in the house.

Unfortunately he can't be made to answer for what may have gone on now that he's dead.

Galwayguy35 · 05-03-2019 05:04PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's actually likely that some of them are and that some others were exaggerating.

Any parent who lets their kids sleep with a grown man has some questions to answer. I would be interested in knowing if they were being given money/payment to let MJ sleep with their kids.

If they were being paid, it may well be that some of them changed their mind about the molestation after the payments stopped.

This is speculation of course but I just find it hard to get my head around why a parent would lend their kid to a grownup for the purposes of sleeping with them. And if money was involved, then the situation looks much, much worse.

But did the parents know that he was sleeping in the same bed at their kids at the time?

ceadaoin. · 05-03-2019 05:23PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

But did the parents know that he was sleeping in the same bed at their kids at the time?

Well at least the ones in the documentary did. One of the mothers resisted allowing it for some time but eventually allowed it after starting to see Michael as her son. The other one, robsons mother, left her son in Michael's sole care days after meeting him and went off to the grand canyon for a few days! Couldn't believe when I heard she did that

mcmoustache · 05-03-2019 05:30PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

But did the parents know that he was sleeping in the same bed at their kids at the time?

I'm still learning about all this but this article from The Atlantic ("What about the parents") has some information on it.

The rules were suspended. So when Jackson invited Robson and his older sister, Chantal, to sleep in his quarters, Joy says she didn’t think much of it. Nor when Jackson offered to let Robson stay with him for a week while the Robson family visited the Grand Canyon.

Even so, on their first vacation with Jackson, Stephanie nixed James’s request to sleep in the star’s room. But gradually, with Jackson bringing Safechuck on tour, the arrangement changed. “It seems like it was a natural thing that happened,” Stephanie says. “My husband and I had to have said, ‘Yes, you can sleep with Michael.’” But she doesn’t recall the moment when that would have been.

8-10 · 05-03-2019 05:36PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Unfortunately he can't be made to answer for what may have gone on now that he's dead.

He also can't be sued because he's dead. However his companies can, which is why Wade Robson's accusations aren't that MJ abused him, it's that his companies were responsible for the abuse.

He's suing MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions for being "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known" and claiming that Norma Staikos, Jackson's PA, was his pimp or "madame" responsible for procuring children.

I'm not sure how much detail the documentary goes into his depositions and accusations against his companies, but it is interesting that his story is specifically aimed at portraying the companies as being the ones responsible and essentially accusing them of systematic child sex trafficking - which is where compensation would come from - rather than just accusing MJ of abuse which wouldn't allow him any compensation but would be just to get the truth out there.

I'm going to watch it this weekend I hope but very interested to hear his specific evidence that Staikos was the one who procured him, it's a pretty serious accusation to make about somebody and if she did knowingly recruit him for that purpose she should go to jail for the rest of her life. I presume she will be deposed at some stage if not already

Rubberchikken · 05-03-2019 05:42PM

its in no way normal for an adult to share a bed with a child that isnt their own.
at the same time i really believe that there are parents out there who would hand over their kids to anyone just so that they can find fame, either the kid through work or the parents through connections.

kids cant make the decision to stay with adults, famous or not, so the parents have to be held respobsible also.

this abuse if kids with famous men seems to be particularly common in art areas where fame is seen to be more important than safety.

storker · 05-03-2019 05:43PM

8-10 wrote: »

"the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known"

That's a shocking claim. Hasn't he ever heard of the Catholic Church?

Boggles · 05-03-2019 05:44PM

The Jackson estate is suing HBO.

The 2 lads in the doc will probably have to re tell parts of their story under oath without unlimited takes.

When Robson was made do this under the original deposition, he couldn't get half a story straight.

05-03-2019 06:08PM

Boggles wrote: »

When Robson was made do this under the original deposition, he couldn't get half a story straight.

Doesn't that just tend to indicate that he wasn't being entirely truthful when he was defending Jackson?

ceadaoin. · 05-03-2019 06:18PM

Boggles wrote: »

The Jackson estate is suing HBO.

The 2 lads in the doc will probably have to re tell parts of their story under oath without unlimited takes.

When Robson was made do this under the original deposition, he couldn't get half a story straight.

Have you seen the documentary? They definitely don't come across as liars, especially Safechuck. It was clearly very hard for him to talk about this in parts. So I guess they are both not only liars who have really done their research about how grooming works and how abusers operate, but amazing actors too?

Boggles · 05-03-2019 06:29PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Doesn't that just tend to indicate that he wasn't being entirely truthful when he was defending Jackson?

I'm not talking about the 2005 court case, he was flawless. He was called as the defenses first witness.

Robson couldn't get his story straight in 2013/14 when he was suing the Jackson estate.

Boggles · 05-03-2019 06:37PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Have you seen the documentary? They definitely don't come across as liars, especially Safechuck. It was clearly very hard for him to talk about this in parts. So I guess they are both not only liars who have really done their research about how grooming works and how abusers operate, but amazing actors too?

I have absolutely no doubt both are very compelling and believable.

That doesn't mean they are telling the truth though.

ceadaoin. · 05-03-2019 06:46PM

Boggles wrote: »

I have absolutely no doubt both are very compelling and believable.

That doesn't mean they are telling the truth though.

Well on the balance of facts, I think it is pretty clear what actually happened.

On the one side we have a man who supposedly loved all children, but had intense friendships with ONLY boys that ended soon after the boys reached puberty when they were replaced with another. Whose home was designed to be appealing to children.Who slept in beds alone with these boys. Who was inappropriately tactile with them, as many photos show. Who lavished the boys and their families with money and gifts. Who had porn openly lying around in areas frequented by children. Who has been accused by several boys of abuse and paid them off.(And I could add even more to that list)

And the other side - the man happens to have been rich and famous so they must be lying.

Doesn't really cut it for me to excuse all the other evidence.

8-10 · 05-03-2019 06:51PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So I guess they are both not only liars who have really done their research about how grooming works and how abusers operate

Just on this snippet, to be clear Wade Robson admitted before filing the lawsuit that he had done extensive research into other child abuse cases and was certainly well read on the subject. That part isn't in dispute at all.

On whether he's a good actor, that's a different story. We may never know the answer to that.

8-10 · 05-03-2019 07:02PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And the other side - the man happens to have been rich and famous so they must be lying.

No, you're being a bit disingenuous there with that statement. Nobody's saying that "they must be lying" because "the man happens to be rich and famous"

There are huge holes in the Chandler and Arviso stories and I don't think either are credible. The circumstances of how they came to accuse him, the actions of the parents and what has happened since to both kids, particularly Jordy, are the reasons they are lying and we can debate them in more detail

It's unfair to the other side of the argument to state that it's simply based on his wealth, in fact one of the prosecution's arguments in 2005 was surrounding his bankruptcy.

Either you don't understand the opposing argument properly or you're wilfully ignoring it and attacking it by reducing to a simple statement around his wealth. There's much much more compelling evidence supporting their being lying

Boggles · 05-03-2019 07:04PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well on the balance of facts, I think it is pretty clear what actually happened.

On the one side we have a man who supposedly loved all children, but had intense friendships with ONLY boys that ended soon after the boys reached puberty when they were replaced with another. Whose home was designed to be appealing to children.Who slept in beds alone with these boys. Who was inappropriately tactile with them, as many photos show. Who lavished the boys and their families with money and gifts. Who had porn openly lying around in areas frequented by children. Who has been accused by several boys of abuse and paid them off.(And I could add even more to that list)

And the other side - the man happens to have been rich and famous so they must be lying.

Doesn't really cut it for me to excuse all the other evidence.

But that's not the facts, it's not even close.

At best that is a very narrow (less than accurate) one sided closing argument.

Boggles · 05-03-2019 07:08PM

8-10 wrote: »

Big fan of Louis, recorded his show last night and look forward to it.

/offtopic

I watched everything Louis has done.

Last nights wasn't great though.

ceadaoin. · 05-03-2019 07:09PM

Boggles wrote: »

But that's not the facts, it's not even close.

At best that is a very narrow (less than accurate) one sided closing argument.

On the one side we have a man who supposedly loved all children, but had intense friendships with ONLY boys that ended soon after the boys reached puberty when they were replaced with another. Whose home was designed to be appealing to children.Who slept in beds alone with these boys. Who was inappropriately tactile with them, as many photos show. Who lavished the boys and their families with money and gifts. Who had porn openly lying around in areas frequented by children. Who has been accused by several boys of abuse and paid them off.

Which of those things is not a fact? Each one of those on its own is questionable behaviour. Together? It's the behaviour of a pedophile

Boggles · 05-03-2019 07:14PM

Who had porn openly lying around in areas frequented by children.

He didn't, this came out in the trial and is one of the reasons the jury thought the family were pure and simple grifters.

nappropriately tactile with them

No idea what this means, which photo's show this?

marklazarcovic · 05-03-2019 07:17PM

If it wasn't MJ and wasn't a celebrity and people got told of this man who built a house ,filled it with kids toys and even a huge playground for kids,and had a recurring theme of befriending very young boys ,their parents, eventually getting the parents to allow these very young boys to stay overnight with this MAN ,and the man admits to having them in his bed overnight, well people would be right in thinking this is textbook grooming by a pedophile.

He kept moving on to other boys as soon as he was done with one,or they became too old for his targeted age range.

That and all the secrecy and staff stories of goings on there and the payoff lead me to only one conclusion,and did years ago.

It's textbook.

ceadaoin. · 05-03-2019 07:24PM

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't, this came out in the trial and is one of the reasons the jury thought the family were pure and simple grifters.

No idea what this means, which photo's show this?

Oh so you mean the police didn't find pornographic material in areas accessible to children? I think they did

You know, tactile, "touchy feely". I don't think it needs explaining that it's inappropriate for a grown man to have arms tightly around a child, or draped over them, hands placed on a young boys thigh, to be constantly holding hands with them, having boys sitting in his lap etc. There are numerous photos showing these scenarios. Here is just one.

But sure it's all innocent, probably just an accident etc. There is nothing that will convince you so good luck

showpony1 · 05-03-2019 07:34PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

If it wasn't MJ and wasn't a celebrity and people got told of this man who built a house ,filled it with kids toys and even a huge playground for kids,and had a recurring theme of befriending very young boys ,their parents, eventually getting the parents to allow these very young boys to stay overnight with this MAN ,and the man admits to having them in his bed overnight, well people would be right in thinking this is textbook grooming by a pedophile.

He kept moving on to other boys as soon as he was done with one,or they became too old for his targeted age range.

That and all the secrecy and staff stories of goings on there and the payoff lead me to only one conclusion,and did years ago.

It's textbook.

I preferred the several other times in the thread this spiel was given where they give the guy a name like "Mick" or "Paddy" down the end of the road to make it more relatable.

Boggles · 05-03-2019 07:34PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There is nothing that will convince you so good luck

Of course there is, carefully considered evidence.

It's been done to death on this thread.

So I suppose good luck to you too.

mcmoustache · 05-03-2019 07:35PM

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't, this came out in the trial and is one of the reasons the jury thought the family were pure and simple grifters.

Unless I'm missing something, it does seem as though he had porn where at a minimum, the kids were able to get at it.

According to a CNN report from 2005...

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Fingerprints from both Michael Jackson and his accuser were recovered from the same sexually explicit magazine found at the pop star's Neverland ranch, a fingerprint analyst testified Friday in the pop star's child molestation trial.

Sgt. Robert Spinner of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department said the prints were found on a magazine titled "Hustler Barely Legal Hardcore." However, Jackson's prints and those of his accuser were found on different pages of the magazine, he said.

In all, 12 prints from Jackson were found on eight different magazines; five prints from his accuser were found on three magazines; and two prints from the accuser's younger brother were found on a single magazine, Spinner said.

Spinner also testified in the Santa Maria, California, courtroom on the reliability of the print comparisons, saying that for the prints that were matched, at least 12 common points were found, and most had nearly 20 common points.

The magazines were seized from Jackson's Neverland ranch in a raid on November 18, 2003. Prosecutors are trying to use fingerprint evidence to buttress the boys' testimony earlier in the trial that Jackson showed them adult material while they were overnight guests in his bedroom.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments