Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles · 09-03-2019 08:45PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Apologies.

Surely impossible though?

Unless he has footage of all the time spent behind the bedroom door with the child involved.

Impossible or not, the Jury interviewed afterwards believed him.

One of the Jurors was the head of some Social Services Unit, so they weren't all slack jawed yokels, another lady had kids the same age and she said that if there was one shred of evidence she was convicting.

brooke 2 · 09-03-2019 08:45PM

CFlat wrote: »

I'm an hour behind.

Seems to be a lot of bitterness by the families that they were thrown to one side when MJ found some other interests.

MJ treated those boys abominably, from an emotional point of view alone. All the pictures of the boy, Jimmy, show him gazing adoringly at MJ. He dropped those boys like hot cakes when he took up with other boys. Adults would find such situations extremely painful to deal with......how cruel was it of MJ to inflict such torture on those young boys. Jimmy left on the couch in the apartment in Chicago, crying for his Mom, while MJ took his new 'protege' to his bedroom....:mad:

innuendo141 · 09-03-2019 08:47PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Even if no one accused him of sexual abuse, using children as props to live out his selfish ideas of childhood is not ok. Treating them as his best friend and center of his world, lavishing them with attention and gifts, only to withdraw that affection and attention and move on to someone else when they get too old to help him live out his fantasies is still abusive and damaging for the children. He obviously only cared about himself and had little regards towards the feelings of his friends.

Yes. Even if nothing sexual occurred, these children could not but be affected by the loss of contact and being in his presence. To go from 0 to 90 and then reverse must have been crushing at the time.

hetuzozaho · 09-03-2019 08:48PM

Boggles wrote: »

Impossible or not.

You think it's possible for people to know what went on behind a closed bedroom door?

Boggles · 09-03-2019 08:49PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

only to withdraw that affection and attention and move on to someone else when they get too old to help him live out his fantasies is still abusive and damaging for the children.

Wade met him 4 times at Neverland according to his mother, a mother who apparently absolutely hounded Jacksons personal assistant for 2 years for another meeting.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-03-2019 08:50PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Generally one doesn't need to watch much of a lot of TV to know how bad some of it is. Indeed for some TV, trailers alone will suffice for the criticism. Director himself has acknowledged it was one-sided. The flaw in that is pretty obvious regardless of how well it is allegedly done.

I would watch a few episodes of anything before offering an opinion on it. Trailers are not enough. That’s just an excuse. If I think it’s likely trash but hadn’t watched any of it, I’d say very little to be honest as I would have very little to back that up. I’d say “I don’t think it’s for me” and “It seems trashy” but that’s it. People are generally - and IMO rightfully - treated dismissively if they critique something without having watched any of it. They are offering up an uneducated opinion and asking to be taken seriously.

As it’s not a trial, I don’t see the problem with it being one-sided. The documentary maker is honest about that. It was a very spare documentary and just having the two testimonies detailed without distraction worked well. People understand that many and probably most documentaries have an angle.

brooke 2 · 09-03-2019 08:52PM

retro:electro wrote: »

And after reading this thread, you wouldn’t blame them. Everything about their experiences, what they said and didn’t say, who they told and didn’t tell used against them for fodder, relentless judgement and mockery.

Wade would want to be one absoluely sick individual to put all of this on his family if untrue. It has absoluely ruined his mother. Why would he do this if untrue? Some things in life are worth more than money. The health, sanity and solidity of your family number one.

As for Safechuck, I find him absoluely compelling. If that’s “close minded” or “embarrassing” then so be it. I am not perfect and neither is anyone here on this thread, but I would rather be whatever the hell I am than a defender and mocker of what in my eyes is obvious grooming, master manipulation and paedophilia.

Absolutely brilliant post!

'There are none so blind as those who will not see.' :mad:

Boggles · 09-03-2019 08:54PM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

You think it's possible for people to know what went on behind a closed bedroom door?

I've no idea lad, I'm only telling you the stated facts of the trial in question.

You seem to be arguing that unless there is video evidence, no one can be truly innocent, the flip part of that course is unless there is video evidence noone can be truly guilty.

But as you said, you don't know much about the trial, maybe read up on it and form your own opinion.

RederthanRed · 09-03-2019 08:54PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Even if no one accused him of sexual abuse, using children as props to live out his selfish ideas of childhood is not ok. Treating them as his best friend and center of his world, lavishing them with attention and gifts, only to withdraw that affection and attention and move on to someone else when they get too old to help him live out his fantasies is still abusive and damaging for the children. He obviously only cared about himself and had little regards towards the feelings of his friends.

Yep, I'd agree fully with you there. Although I'd nit-pick the last sentence.

Yeah he was damaged and living vicariously. Absolutely.

But if that's what it was, acting out his childhood, it makes it even less likely that he would harm a kid, he was trying to give them the magic he never had.

hetuzozaho · 09-03-2019 08:55PM

Boggles wrote: »

I've no idea lad

Interesting

joe40 · 09-03-2019 08:58PM

The Bashir doc is available on youtube. Just go to about 1:20 onwards where the interview involving the 13 year old takes place.
Just look at the body language where they are sitting holding hands describing sleeping arrangements. From a child protection point of view it is awful.

Many abusers genuinely believe they are helping the kids. They believe the relationship is consensual forgetting the massive power disparity, and maturity disparity.
It is not unusual for victims not to realise it was abuse until years later.
It was actually difficult rewatching that scene in light of the subsequent allegations.
As for people trying to discredit other people look how easily Jackson lied about the plastic surgery. Consistently and vehemently.

hetuzozaho · 09-03-2019 08:59PM

innuendo141 wrote: »

Yes. Even if nothing sexual occurred, these children could not but be affected by the loss of contact and being in his presence. To go from 0 to 90 and then reverse must have been crushing at the time.

Yes even if it was just what everyone agrees on, it's just wrong anyway.

Shame.

Necro · 09-03-2019 09:00PM

brooke 2 wrote:

MJ treated those boys abominably, from an emotional point of view alone. All the pictures of the boy, Jimmy, show him gazing adoringly at MJ. He dropped those boys like hot cakes when he took up with other boys. Adults would find such situations extremely painful to deal with......how cruel was it of MJ to inflict such torture on those young boys. Jimmy left on the couch in the apartment in Chicago, crying for his Mom, while MJ took his new 'protege' to his bedroom....

Yeah this is a horrifying part and something that I don't think anyone disputes happens.

The way he treated the kids as if they were toys to be discarded when bored, making one sleep in the downstairs room while he slept in a bed with another.

It's reprehensible behaviour. There is no doubt that the treatment of these young children was abhorrent, on an emotional level. And that's before you get into the sexual element.

Puts in a stark light his true interests tbh, and that all this interest in children's charities was nothing but a sham by a selfish, deluded individual who may or may not have been a child molester.

brooke 2 · 09-03-2019 09:07PM

allybhoy wrote: »

Do you think OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

A mere coincidence that Johnnie Cochran defended Michael Jackson before the 'trial of the century' of OJ.

hetuzozaho · 09-03-2019 09:07PM

joe40 wrote: »

The Bashir doc is available on youtube. Just go to about 1:20 onwards where the interview involving the 13 year old takes place.
Just look at the body language where they are sitting holding hands describing sleeping arrangements. From a child protection point of view it is awful.

Just watched that clip there. It's all very odd.

I guess we can hope society has moved on and we won't be putting children in the beds of celebrities going forward

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-03-2019 09:08PM

sligeach wrote: »

https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/ay42cx/a_condensed_version_of_the_major_credibility/

Just another couple of points proving they're liars. They should keep talking, the more they say, the more their case keeps crumbling before our very eyes.

Overall, the reaction to the documentary seems to have been more positive than negative.

superfurry1 · 09-03-2019 09:10PM

MJ had a book of child porn? And lots more weird porn, if he was asexual the sleeping in a bed with children wouldnt be as much of an issue for me but it seems highly likely that something sexual was going on it's just to what extent.

joe40 · 09-03-2019 09:10PM

RederthanRed wrote: »

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Even if no one accused him of sexual abuse, using children as props to live out his selfish ideas of childhood is not ok. Treating them as his best friend and center of his world, lavishing them with attention and gifts, only to withdraw that affection and attention and move on to someone else when they get too old to help him live out his fantasies is still abusive and damaging for the children. He obviously only cared about himself and had little regards towards the feelings of his friends.

Yep, I'd agree fully with you there. Although I'd nit-pick the last sentence.

Yeah he was damaged and living vicariously. Absolutely.

But if that's what it was, acting out his childhood, it makes it even less likely that he would harm a kid, he was trying to give them the magic he never had.

I'm no expert on this but I believe somtimes abusers think they are helping the kids. They believe possibly genuinely, that the sexual relationship with the child is consensual and fulfilling for the child.

Not condoning or excusing this in anyway, but jackson childish demeanor is not necessarily as harmless as it would appear.
A paedophile can be a damaged person themselves

brooke 2 · 09-03-2019 09:12PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Did a certain famous female popstar sleep in the same bed as her adopted children?

If so I guess she is equally guilty.

If a woman sleeps with children who she is not related to, its fine. If a man sleeps with children he is not related to, he must be one thing.

I'm not saying MJ did or didn't do anything, but sharing a bed with someone while odd, is proof of nothing.

Look we all know MJ was odd. His best friend was a monkey. He lived in essentially a childrens theme park. It seems creepy now but oddly at the time no-one passed any heed. When you are as rich as he was you can live any way you want as long as you don't break the law.

Did she have bells and whistles and cameras outside her bedroom to alert her if anyone was approaching the bedroom? :P

Necro · 09-03-2019 09:13PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote:

Overall, the reaction to the documentary seems to have been more positive than negative.

That poster has been posting all sorts of random nonsense for the last few days minimally, it's best to honestly just ignore tbh.

ceadaoin. · 09-03-2019 09:13PM

RederthanRed wrote: »

Yep, I'd agree fully with you there. Although I'd nit-pick the last sentence.

Yeah he was damaged and living vicariously. Absolutely.

But if that's what it was, acting out his childhood, it makes it even less likely that he would harm a kid, he was trying to give them the magic he never had.

But he was harming them, emotionally at the very least. He'd have been better off using his unlimited resources to get extensive therapy. Him not having a childhood is no excuse for using kids in that manner.

Mr.Wemmick · 09-03-2019 09:14PM

superfurry1 wrote: »

MJ had a book of child porn? And lots more weird porn, if he was asexual the sleeping in a bed with children wouldnt be as much of an issue for me but it seems highly likely that something sexual was going on it's just to what extent.

Well, I have lots of friends I love and care about. I love spending as much time as I can with my friends, but I don't share a bed with them.

Do any of you share beds with your friends?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-03-2019 09:14PM

Boggles wrote: »

I'm not taking about an uncle, or teacher or superstar (he is dead).

These are "normal" people who should be indicted for their very serious alleged crimes, they should be put on trial and evidence against them tested and if found guilty they should spend the rest of their lives in prison.

As the criminal allegations are cross state and effectively world wide, then it falls into the remit of the FBI.

Which essentially is the United States of America with basically unlimited funds.

So it's not just one small guy trying to fight "the power" on his own.

This has been going on for nearly 6 years.

The light has been well and truly shun, it's been thrown of court as a pack of complete lies.

Do you mean the case that was dismissed because the statute of limitations had passed?

iamwhoiam · 09-03-2019 09:16PM

Michael Jackson was an adult , albeit a very damaged adult . He abused young boys be it sexual or not . He used them for his own enjoyment or satisfaction and if he never touched them sexually he still used young boys to fullfill a need .

But by no means excusing him and his role I would question the motivation of parents who allowed their children be in that situation .

RederthanRed · 09-03-2019 09:17PM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Overall, the reaction to the documentary seems to have been more positive than negative.

Its getting 3 out of 5 on the main doc sites.

Sort of mental it even got that without a shred of evidence.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-03-2019 09:18PM

joe40 wrote: »

Michael Jackson's legacy is in tatters and it is due to his own actions. Surrounding himself with children, a grown man sleeping with children. This is not normal behaviour. There is no talk of mental illness with Jackson so this was a competent adult behaving in this way.

Western society including Ireland has matured a lot in our response to child protection, child grooming and the long term effects of abuse.
In this light Jackson's behaviour can only be viewed as extremely worrying and dangerous.
At the time his fans did not want to question his behaviour, just dismissed it as a bit odd. This attitude is still the default for some, but rest of the world is waking up.

Didn’t you hear, Joe? He had a completely unique disorder where a talented, business-savvy grown man simultaneously has the mind of a child. It’s called ‘Michael Jackson Syndrome’. Why him? For the love of god, WHY HIM? :pac:

Necro · 09-03-2019 09:19PM

iamwhoiam wrote:

But by no means excusing him and his role I would question the motivation of parents who allowed their children be in that situation .

And they should absolutely be punished for their hand in the matter.

But it in no way excuses anything Jackson was allowed to do from his position of power in exploiting those young children for his own methods, sexual or not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-03-2019 09:25PM

RederthanRed wrote: »

Its getting 3 out of 5 on the main doc sites.

Sort of mental it even got that without a shred of evidence.

Metacritic, which covers a broad range of publications - both liberal and conservative - has it calculated at a weighted score of 85/100.

As someone who thought the documentary to be very good, that’s no surprise to me.

The user score is much lower. Quelle surprise.

ceadaoin. · 09-03-2019 09:28PM

Boggles wrote: »

Wade met him 4 times at Neverland according to his mother, a mother who apparently absolutely hounded Jacksons personal assistant for 2 years for another meeting.

Well I was more talking in general terms about all the boys who were his close friends for a period of time. It has never been denied that he treated them in the way described.

You seem obsessed with discrediting Robson but don't have much to say about Safechuck whose relationship with MJ was clearly much more intense than robsons. There is no denying how involved he was with Jackson, it's was documented for years, or that he was damaged by being "dumped", even if you take away the sexual abuse allegations

sligeach · 09-03-2019 09:28PM

walshb wrote: »

Just finished it..

A paedophile or not, the documentary is D pits...

Very odd the whole thing..

Ten years too late...

Safechuck’s mother is some piece of work..

Damn straight.

https://twitter.com/FactualMj/status/1104366495449206784

When the "truth" is divided, lies multiply.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments