Micky Jackson in trouble again

joe40 · 10-03-2019 02:36AM

What would constitute concrete proof"

joe40 · 10-03-2019 02:44AM

RederthanRed wrote: »

End game, It's either he's a kiddy fiddler or he isn't.

If this was a family member for any of us we'd demand concrete proof.

Same standards should apply here. And there's no proof.

If a family member of mine was sleeping with children I would be having words with him.
As in ****ing stop or I'll go to the police myself.
And if those kids made allegations of abuse it would be very hard to ignore

RederthanRed · 10-03-2019 02:45AM

joe40 wrote: »

What would constitute concrete proof"

More than 2 lads saying they'd been abused in various rooms.

Lets say the allegations were against someone from your family... What proof would you want?

Stacksofwacks · 10-03-2019 02:50AM

RederthanRed wrote: »

End game, It's either he's a kiddy fiddler or he isn't.

If this was a family member for any of us we'd demand concrete proof.

Same standards should apply here. And there's no proof.

What concrete proof can there be? MJ had three locked doors between his abuse and his nearest minders, all we can rely on is anecdotal evidence

joe40 · 10-03-2019 02:55AM

RederthanRed wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

What would constitute concrete proof"

More than 2 lads saying they'd been abused in various rooms.

Lets say the allegations were against someone from your family... What proof would you want?

How to get away with child abuse?
Just make sure you only abuse one child only. That should do it. Seems to be the logic here

If anyone in my family behaved like MJ with kids I would be disgusted. Would you not be?

10-03-2019 02:55AM

RederthanRed wrote: »

More than 2 lads saying they'd been abused in various rooms.

Lets say the allegations were against someone from your family... What proof would you want?

There have been more than two...

sabat · 10-03-2019 03:06AM

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

What concrete proof can there be? MJ had three locked doors between his abuse and his nearest minders, all we can rely on is anecdotal evidence

I know I'm totally guessing here but I reckon there are videos of some of the abuse locked away in a vault somewhere, either created by him for his own delectation or by others surreptitiously for leverage. The idea that this whole sordid business ends because he's dead is a non-runner too, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people who are potentially guilty of crimes, depending on how they helped facilitate the abuse.

Stacksofwacks · 10-03-2019 03:11AM

sabat wrote: »

I know I'm totally guessing here but I reckon there are videos of some of the abuse locked away in a vault somewhere, either created by him for his own delectation or by others surreptitiously for leverage. The idea that this whole sordid business ends because he's dead is a non-runner too, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people who are potentially guilty of crimes, depending on how they helped facilitate the abuse.

If he was brazen enough he would have made videos and Ive a feeling you are right

sligeach · 10-03-2019 03:28AM

sabat wrote: »

I know I'm totally guessing here but I reckon there are videos of some of the abuse locked away in a vault somewhere, either created by him for his own delectation or by others surreptitiously for leverage. The idea that this whole sordid business ends because he's dead is a non-runner too, there are literally hundreds if not thousands of people who are potentially guilty of crimes, depending on how they helped facilitate the abuse.

People not content with calling him a paedophile, though he was never convicted and there's no evidence he was. Now you've moved on to speculating on complete bull$h1t about making videos of abuse that never happened. Your whole statement is fantasy bull$h1t. With not a shred of evidence to backup such hallucinations. And then you've got another spacer below saying that you could be right. Do you hear yourselves?

Stacksofwacks · 10-03-2019 03:33AM

sligeach wrote: »

People not content with calling him a paedophile, though he was never convicted and there's no evidence he was. Now you've moved on to speculating on complete bull$h1t about making videos of abuse that never happened. Your whole statement is fantasy bull$h1t. With not a shred of evidence to backup such hallucinations. And then you've got another spacer below saying that you could be right. Do you hear yourselves?

Ok Spacer what would consider evidence sufficient to convince you MJ was an unadulterated pedo?

sligeach · 10-03-2019 03:47AM

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

Ok Spacer what would consider evidence sufficient to convince you MJ was an unadulterated pedo?

He was found not guilty in 2005:

Indeed, the 2005 criminal trial of Jackson was a complete farce, and Michael Jackson was completely exonerated. As anyone who has studied that trial knows, the jury utterly repudiated the prosecution’s case. In both his opening and closing statements, Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau, took the unusual step of telling the jury that they should acquit Jackson because Mesereau and his team had proven Jackson innocent. In other words, he did not try the case as a “reasonable doubt” case. Mr. Mesereau tried the case with the purpose and goal of proving Jackson innocent. And he did exactly that.

https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/

The trial also brought up the allegations of 1993. So what we're left with is these 2 accusers whose stories are riddled with lies, have changed their stories, tried to sue Michael's Estate for $1.5 billion, have had their cases thrown out of court on a number of occasions, have made ludicrous claims, omitted facts and partook in a hatchet job of a mockumentary.

Stacksofwacks · 10-03-2019 03:48AM

And one of the star witnesses in 2005 is now saying that Michael abused him

sabat · 10-03-2019 03:51AM

sligeach wrote: »

People not content with calling him a paedophile, though he was never convicted and there's no evidence he was. Now you've moved on to speculating on complete bull$h1t about making videos of abuse that never happened. Your whole statement is fantasy bull$h1t. With not a shred of evidence to backup such hallucinations. And then you've got another spacer below saying that you could be right. Do you hear yourselves?

I stated that it was a pure guess, but given that we know that there was all manner of film equipment available to him and confirmed to be installed in Neverland and that paedophiles do tend to enjoy recording their activities, it's not really a huge leap. The evidence of him being a paedophile is the hundreds of pre-pubescent boys sleeping in his bed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-03-2019 04:25AM

The snippet of the interview with the 2005 jurors in the documentary - my word. That winking troglodyte? Juries are a cross-section and sometimes it means that mouth-breathers like her end up deciding these cases.

ceadaoin. · 10-03-2019 05:24AM

Another article by Maureen orth who has been writing pieces for vanity Fair about this for decades.

She raises an often forgotten point that it's 5 boys who have publicly accused Jackson now.

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

4. 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.

She's never been sued by the Jackson's for any of her articles

Also, she flagged up Jackson's relationship with Safechuck as suspicious 25 years ago

On one leg of his 1988 "Bad" tour, according to Taraborrelli, Jackson took along a 10-year-old California boy named Jimmy Safechuck, on whom he showered gifts, and whose parents got a $100,000 Rolls-Royce from Michael. His manager at the time encouraged him to break off the relationship, because it looked so bad.

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1994/01/orth199401

ToBeFrank123 · 10-03-2019 05:32AM

sabat wrote: »

I stated that it was a pure guess, but given that we know that there was all manner of film equipment available to him and confirmed to be installed in Neverland and that paedophiles do tend to enjoy recording their activities, it's not really a huge leap. The evidence of him being a paedophile is the hundreds of pre-pubescent boys sleeping in his bed.

Such videos would definitely clear the whole thing up once and for all. The problem is they don't appear to exist. What's the next unsubstantiated allegation you want to make? That he shot JFK? Its certainly possible as there is no evidence to suggest he didn't.

I believe lawyers call an unsubstantiated non cross examined witness account "untested". So the allegations in the documentary are untested.

Stacksofwacks · 10-03-2019 05:46AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Such videos would definitely clear the whole thing up once and for all. The problem is they don't appear to exist. What's the next unsubstantiated allegation you want to make? That he shot JFK? Its certainly possible as there is no evidence to suggest he didn't.

I believe lawyers call an unsubstantiated non cross examined witness account "untested". So the allegations in the documentary are untested.

Does anyone know how many times Wade was alone with MJ at the property if ever? His mother said in sworn testimoney Jackson was only there 4 times with them. How many sleepovers were there? This is the type of basic fact checking the doc completely lacked.

Unsubstantiated? Dont make me laugh, its up to you guys to prove MJ didnt do any of these things, or could never do it. Silence I presume..

marklazarcovic · 10-03-2019 06:01AM

Reading this thread has given me a understanding of how the Catholic Church got away with what they were doing for so fckin long. Blind fckin loyalty.

MJ was a textbook groomer/abuser/manipulator.

He was good at music.

People are going on like he was a saint, infallible,and his accusers are evil liars.

I actually think if they found homemade abuse vids by Jackson on kids they would find someway to explain away or discredit the victims on it.

Sickening.

And yes I know the guys might be telling some lies,might be,but there has been too much fckin downright obvious behavior from MJ for decades for me not to believe that there are many more boys than them that have been abused by him.

8-10 · 10-03-2019 09:31AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The snippet of the interview with the 2005 jurors in the documentary - my word. That winking troglodyte? Juries are a cross-section and sometimes it means that mouth-breathers like her end up deciding these cases.

If anyone here has been on a jury it is truly scary how easily a dominant opinion in the jury room one way or the other can completely away the decision. I've been in 2 close calls, one in particular was a child sex abuse case where the only evidence was the victim's word

KikiLaRue · 10-03-2019 09:54AM

8-10 wrote: »

If anyone here has been on a jury it is truly scary how easily a dominant opinion in the jury room one way or the other can completely away the decision. I've been in 2 close calls, one in particular was a child sex abuse case where the only evidence was the victim's word

Often in cases of sexual assault or child abuse there is no evidence other than the victims word. That’s why they are so hard to prosecute and that’s why conviction rates are so low.

I was sexually assaulted in 2010 and I didn’t report it for exactly this reason. I knew it was my word against his, and a lot of people would say “well where’s the evidence”.

And I didn’t have any.

But it happened.

10-03-2019 09:55AM

After watching the doc, I wonder was MJ’s child like behaviour all a very elaborate act?

I knew a man once who was in a relationship with a family member. He gave me the creeps but he put on a very innocent, almost childlike front which actually changed when you were alone with him. It was very unsettling and he turned out to be the creep we’d suspected.

Anyway it got me thinking about MJ and drawing parallels. I wonder did he behave so inoffensively so no one would ever suspect him? When I hear what the boys allege he did I just can’t imagine the giggling innocent MJ we all know doing those things. Maybe everything about him was an act. Or maybe I’m wrong, but it’s a disturbing thought.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 10:00AM

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

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.

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.

Hannibal_Smith · 10-03-2019 10:01AM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Reading this thread has given me a understanding of how the Catholic Church got away with what they were doing for so fckin long. Blind fckin loyalty.

MJ was a textbook groomer/abuser/manipulator.

He was good at music.

People are going on like he was a saint, infallible,and his accusers are evil liars.

I actually think if they found homemade abuse vids by Jackson on kids they would find someway to explain away or discredit the victims on it.

Sickening.

And yes I know the guys might be telling some lies,might be,but there has been too much fckin downright obvious behavior from MJ for decades for me not to believe that there are many more boys than them that have been abused by him.

How was he a text book groomer? If he was a groomer, he was on a scale all of his own. He got parents to offer their kids to him and got to abuse them in the comfort of his own bed with everyone knowing they were in his bed but thinking it was ok :pac: What other groomer could get away with that? (If he did it)

airy fairy · 10-03-2019 10:10AM

Why do people need evidence?
Were there recordings of the sex abusers in the church?
Why is the MJ situation no different? Why is he not being condemned?
Blinkered vision.
MJ groomed the parents.
MJ groomed the kids.
Sex abuse survivors can take decades to finally realise that they were abused. A trigger could take a lifetime to happen. And when it does, it can be catastrophic to the abused.
It's obvious that many posters here do not know what grooming is, or have experience of it.
Look at the Opera interview After Neverland if you need a little insight.
Watch Spotlight to gain a little knowledge.
Some posters here need to wake up to reality and be a little compassionate.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 10:15AM

airy fairy wrote: »

Why do people need evidence?
Were there recordings of the sex abusers in the church?
Why is the MJ situation no different? Why is he not being condemned?
Blinkered vision.
MJ groomed the parents.
MJ groomed the kids.
Sex abuse survivors can take decades to finally realise that they were abused. A trigger could take a lifetime to happen. And when it does, it can be catastrophic to the abused.
It's obvious that many posters here do not know what grooming is, or have experience of it.
Look at the Opera interview After Neverland if you need a little insight.
Watch Spotlight to gain a little knowledge.
Some posters here need to wake up to reality and be a little compassionate.

Evidence is a good thing generally. It's what gets such people locked up. We all have a bias of some form when it comes to this and people not agreeing with you is not evidence of anything more than disagreement.

Call me Al · 10-03-2019 10:26AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How was he a text book groomer? If he was a groomer, he was on a scale all of his own. He got parents to offer their kids to him and got to abuse them in the comfort of his own bed with everyone knowing they were in his bed but thinking it was ok :pac: What other groomer could get away with that? (If he did it)

That point was made in the Oprah interview.
He was grooming them before he even met them. His celebrity status and persona made him more acceptable.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 10:34AM

Call me Al wrote: »

That point was made in the Oprah interview.
He was grooming them before he even met them. His celebrity status and persona made him more acceptable.

This is the height of silliness. Was there some psychic force at work?

marklazarcovic · 10-03-2019 10:40AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How was he a text book groomer? If he was a groomer, he was on a scale all of his own. He got parents to offer their kids to him and got to abuse them in the comfort of his own bed with everyone knowing they were in his bed but thinking it was ok :pac: What other groomer could get away with that? (If he did it)

You answered your own question, your smiley face is disturbing because as you know it's a fact what you have written there.

Hannibal_Smith · 10-03-2019 10:43AM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

You answered your own question, your smiley face is disturbing because as you know it's a fact what you have written there.

I didnt answer how it's text book???

ToBeFrank123 · 10-03-2019 10:54AM

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.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments