Micky Jackson in trouble again

suicide_circus wrote: »

its almost like not every abuser has the exact same profile

I'm not the one making the comparison.

suicide_circus wrote: »

the comparison is that theyre both pedo freakshows

That's not a comparison.

That's an opinion.

But sure, As you were.

Boggles wrote: »

That's not a comparison.

That's an opinion.

But sure, As you were.

but thats all any of us can give, an opinion, including yourself.

and i feel safe as houses in my opinion that MJ was a freak and a Paedophile.

you'd swear the first we heard that he was a kiddie fiddler was from this documentary. He stated openly that he shared his bed with prepubescent boys. it only takes a bit of common sense. the man was a nonse.

On getting evidence of abuse. It is as pointed out difficult to gather direct evidence of abuse. What a prosecution would need is circumstantial evidence such as another abused individual whose testimony corroborates that of the accuser. Abuse is the most nefarious of all charges as it's so difficult to prove unless there is a smoking gun.

In the case of abuses in the Church it would be simple to point out that abuse was endemic, that it was prevalent and a prosecutor can validate a victim's account based on that but crucially there were typically other abuse victims which were needed to secure an actual conviction i.e. it was serial abuse, of many other victims etc. The principal in our primary school, a Christian Brother, had a case brought against him for molestation in the early 80's.

It was one ex-pupil making the claim. This was 20 years ago. It went to trial and he was exonerated. My mother was the cleaning lady at that time and would have been in the building after hours. The accuser mentioned that she would have been on the grounds when the abuse happened and she was asked by the defense to act as a witness for the Brother. She was cross examined. She had a master key, would have open access to every room. She never saw anything inappropriate. There were no other accusers and in the charged climate against religious institutions he was exonerated. He may well have abused this guy but there was no one else to corroborate his claims and the defense were capable of presenting him as an unsavory character, addiction problems and was in it only as a cash grab to feed his addiction. In the court of law the Brother was innocent. In the public court, given the climate, he must have been guilty; e.g. shure aren't they all at it?

In the case of Jackson, he may well have been a serial abuser, a pedophile who was hiding in plain sight, who actively groomed families of kid's for the ultimate purpose of molesting boys. In the court of public opinion, he is guilty but in a court of law, after an 18 month trial, he is innocent. All it needed was a solitary "Yes" to convict Jackson. A yes the prosecution failed to elicit.

Did he ever kiss you on the lips?
Did he ever touch your genitals?
Did he ever expose his genitals to you?
etc etc

A "Yes" to any such questions, from any one person, from the cache of kids Jackson had interacted with for years and he'd have gone to jail. Arvizo, who like the ex-pupil may well have been abused, crucially needed someone to corroborate his accusations. Safechuck, Chandler, Robson could have given that Yes but didn't. Not sure if Chandler was gagged to that end. Thinking about my mother with the master key, for me the smoking gun, if there is one would be the security system in place to alert of any approaching persons. In that case, if my mother had to regularly open the Brother's classroom door, or noted it was persistently locked then a prosecutor would ask follow up questions asking if there were ever any pupils in the class room with the brother and with the door locked? Any pupils at all? If there were then that would be circumstantial evidence i.e. why feel the need to actually lock the classroom door. A skilled prosecutor would present it as circumstantial evidence i.e. no other doors were closed except his, he locked the door with pupils inside, while we can't provide direct evidence we can surmise that closing the door was not necessary etc. A jury would be convinced something was going on.

She said that while pupils were held back this must have been for detention but she said the door was never locked unless she had locked it herself, that it had been locked but with nobody inside and never recalled it being locked with anyone inside. Only she and the Brother had master keys. So yeah, a major celebrity sleeping in their bedroom by themselves or with their partner with a security system installed? Standard "Panic Room" territory. Remember the intruder who tried to get into Spielberg's home in the 90's? I am sure most high profile, LA Based celebs had such tech in their homes.

But a major celebrity sleeping in his bedroom with prepubescent boys, without their parents present, miles from LA, on a guarded private compound and with a similar state of the art security system? It's a miracle he got away with that and it's deeply bizarre that he or his entourage couldn't see the problem with that. Essentially, like the Brother needing a locked door, what the hell did he need a security system for unless he was up to no good.

Flying Fox wrote: »

Many did, this is a good article listing a ton of them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-allegations-staff-friends-family/amp

But many would have signed confidentiality agreements and would have been afraid of the consequences of coming forward, legal and otherwise. Note the gang members he employed to 'be seen' around Neverland at the time of the Chandler trial.

Or maybe it was because most of his former staff that made statements against him had their credibility called into question when it was found out that some of them were stealing from him and were only motivated by money be selling lies and false statements to the press.

From the article you linked

"Her credibility came under question when it was revealed that Francia had also reportedly been paid $20,000 for an interview with Hard Copy after leaving Neverland."

"Chacon and a former maid were also found guilty of stealing belongings from Jackson’s estate, amounting to more than $50,000, and of accepting money in exchange for a tabloid interview."

"McManus had been part of the wrongful-termination lawsuit filed against Jackson, in hopes of making more than $16 million. Like Chacon, McManus was also found guilty of stealing items from Jackson’s home and accepting money in exchange for a tabloid interview."

"The couple lost credibility when it was discovered that they had tried to sell their story to The National Enquirer, allegedly altering details of their story in an attempt to get more money from tabloid outlets."

valoren wrote: »

Not sure if Chandler was gagged to that end.

Chandler was not gagged, it's a myth put out there for obvious reasons

Apparently the prosecution pressured him to testify in 2005, he warned them if they didn't stop hassling him he would lawyer up, he eventually left the country.

He was hassled again for Robsons civil suit, Robson apparently tried to compel (bully) his family to testify.

Flying Fox wrote: »

Funny how every person who speaks against him (and there have been many) has credibility issues, yet the man himself is whiter than white. Despite his clearly inappropriate behaviour.

Funny how inappropriate behaviour and a couple of unsubstantiated allegations automatically make the man a paedophile.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Regardless the relationships(which no one disputes) he had with them have had an adverse effect on them in my opinion. And they shouldn't have been subjected to it at 7 years of age.

I'm not so sure there is evidence to back up that claim.

The evidence would point to the opposite, with kids and adults who spent time with Michael suggesting nothing other than him being a positive influence in their life. Vehemently so. The main cheer leader being Robson who echoed strongly what everyone else had been saying.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I guess we just disagree. It's not how I feel a child should be raised. I wouldn't allow mine sleep with a strange man. Different strokes I guess.

Neither would I. But that is moot to your point.

Your opinion is that Jackson damaged these kids by his inappropriate behavior, the evidence strongly suggests that isn't in fact true, but the opposite is.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I feel they are not well adjusted adults. And I believe their upbringing played a part in it.

I imagine that is true, but Jackson didn't "raise" either of the 2 lads in the "documentary".

In Robsons case for instance there is a history of mental illness on his fathers side, his mother was hardly a rock of sense either.

You have the other lads mother who looks "stoned" claim she danced the greatest dance ever when she heard Jackson died, all though she didn't know at that stage that her son had been "molested".

Maybe if they are are not well adjusted adults you should really point the finger of blame to the people who raised them and not an entertainer they spent some time with.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No. You tried to insinuate and put it out there that it happened when Jackson was a child. It didn't.

It shows a pattern of behaviour, even back then

No, just a simple question to clarify information I did not know. People do that, you know. You've managed to send it down this crazy rabbit hole all on your own.