Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Micky Jackson in trouble again

24567117

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,907 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    vicwatson wrote: »
    “Musicians”? Did he even play an instrument?

    Michael Jackson would have had musicianship beaten into him. So yes he was a professional musician.the fact you even ask such a question means you don't know an awful lot about musicianship?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,938 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Couple of guys in their 30s claiming they were abused by MJ.

    Wonder how much they are suing his estate for?

    Easy to make claims against a dead man.

    But if his estate has already been distributed there would be no money to sue for. They can’t sue the beneficiaries as they are innocent parties. That would be whybwhere there is pending court cases against an estate payouts to the beneficiaries in the will would be suspended until after any actions.

    A dead person whose will has been distributed can’t pay.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I've pitied those kids all their lives. They certainly can't claim to have had a normal upbringing or life. Paris has checked into rehab only recently
    The oldest lad seems to have his head screwed on. He wants to work in the entertainment industry but behind the camera, either producing or directing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I sacked a guy for stealing from the till. Had it on cctv. He brings me to labour court. Arbitrator advised me to make a payment to him as a full hearing could have me not being able to work for several days due to court appearances. I paid. I sacked him because he stole & I had video proof but I payed.

    Sometimes paying is easier. A mistake in Jacksons case imo. You will also notice that it was an out of court settlement & he was not found guilty nor did he admit guilt.

    The law of the land says that he's not guilty & is entitled to the assumption of innocence

    His accusers today aren't bringing his estate to court. There is no evidence for an inquiry or investigation.

    Never liked his music and I thought him a dope but you have to look at these things and look at the bigger picture. There is no inquiry, investigation or civil action. Why do you suppose that is?

    Settling a matter in the WRC is a very different kettle of fish. Would you have settled an accusation of paedophilic assault if you were accused?


  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭NickD


    R Kelly was found not guilty, so was O.J Simpson.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,818 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Settling a matter in the WRC is a very different kettle of fish. Would you have settled an accusation of paedophilic assault if you were accused?


    I never would have put myself in the situation where I could be accused in the first place. I adore kids. I'd gladly spend my day on the floor playing with kids (not in that way). I don't even talk to a child I don't know unless my wife is beside me. I'd never even leave myself open like he did.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,031 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    The victims themselves explained why they testified that he hadn't abused them - they were told by him that if they said anything their lives would be ruined, and they didn't actually realise it was abuse at the time. They thought they were consenting. This is what grooming is.

    I've never believed that Jackson was innocent and this just cements it for me. There is no reason for a grown man to share a bed with children and to go to the extent he did to be undisturbed with them. Just no.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,818 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    NickD wrote:
    R Kelly was found not guilty, so was O.J Simpson.


    So was Paddy Jackson & his co accused. His Ireland career was ruined because people won't accept the not guilty verdict.

    You don't get to pick & choose who is innocent and guilty after a not guilty verdict. You have to accept the verdict.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Multiple police and FBI investigations found nothing despite multiple claims from supposed witnesses of abuse and claims of computers and laptops full of child porn but yet nothing was ever found ,
    I don't believe he was an actual peodo ,a messed up individual who didn't make the smartest of decisions ,
    Look at saville some of the witnesses who gave statements against him literally said i heard for someone who said he did this and that ,and the majority lining up for claim's had zero interest in making complaints to authorities but wanted cash payouts ,he was a sick individual but it shows anyone can take advantage of anothers persons abuse for money .
    The whole #metoo was the same people on here happy to say they always knew this celeb and that celebs were abusers based of tweets .


  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭NickD


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    So was Paddy Jackson & his co accused. His Ireland career was ruined because people won't accept the not guilty verdict.

    You don't get to pick & choose who is innocent and guilty after a not guilty verdict. You have to accept the verdict.

    My point was more about America than here, that's why I named two American, very clearly guilty men.

    Both of them have admitted to what they've done, both were wealthy, popular entertainers and both had a fan base that refused to hear anything bad about their hero. Both paid huge sums to the victims/ their families.

    Paddy Jackson doesn't fit that comparison at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    I was always quite sure something murky was up, but I think Cory Feldman, mentally unwell as he clearly is, being so adamant that Jackson never did anything to him or anyone else he saw there despite all his allegations towards others (which sadly I reckon there is a lot of credence behind) really gives an awful lot of pause for thought. Not seen this documentary though, I might flick it on this evening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭NickD


    Billy86 wrote: »
    I was always quite sure something murky was up, but I think Cory Feldman, mentally unwell as he clearly is, being so adamant that Jackson never did anything to him or anyone else he saw there despite all his allegations towards others (which sadly I reckon there is a lot of credence behind) really gives an awful lot of pause for thought. Not seen this documentary though, I might flick it on this evening.

    It's four hours long!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,818 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    NickD wrote:
    My point was more about America than here, that's why I named two American, very clearly guilty men.

    You see you can't say that. America has the same setup as here and in the North. Not guilty gives you the presumption of insurance. There is no difference between the states and here just because you want to say two are guilty but wanted the lads in the North innocent.

    Legally paddy Jackson is as innocent or guilty as Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson & R Kelly.

    No offence meant here but it's hypocritical to say some are guilty but paddy Jackson isn't. All are not guilty


  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ Caspian Raspy Bullfighter


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    The victims themselves explained why they testified that he hadn't abused them - they were told by him that if they said anything their lives would be ruined, and they didn't actually realise it was abuse at the time. They thought they were consenting. This is what grooming is.

    I've never believed that Jackson was innocent and this just cements it for me. There is no reason for a grown man to share a bed with children and to go to the extent he did to be undisturbed with them. Just no.

    I could understand how Wade Robson might have done that as a 14-17 year old.

    It's harder for me to understand how he did it as a 23 year old.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Robson

    Robson testified in Michael Jackson's defense at the People v. Jackson trial in 2005. When Jackson was acquitted of child abuse in this case, Robson said he had slept many times in Jackson's room, but he had never experienced any assault.In 2013, Robson claimed the opposite; that Jackson had sexually abused him as a child.In 2017, however, a judge dismissed the lawsuit against the Jackson estate on the grounds that the accused parties could not have controlled Jackson's behavior. The judge's ruling was not based on the credibility of Robson's allegations.]


    I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 342 ✭✭VeryTerry


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    So was Paddy Jackson & his co accused. His Ireland career was ruined because people won't accept the not guilty verdict.

    You don't get to pick & choose who is innocent and guilty after a not guilty verdict. You have to accept the verdict.

    The public made a decision about Jackson based on the details from the case. Everybody has the right to their own opinion in matters of morality.

    Are we to assume you're wrong and the lad that stole from you is right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,818 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    VeryTerry wrote:
    The public made a decision about Jackson based on the details from the case. Everybody has the right to their own opinion in matters of morality.


    My point is that a poster is stating that two Americans are guilty. I'm saying that a very proportion of people believe the lads from the North are guilty. It's wrong to suggest that any of them are guilty. According to the law of Ireland, UK & USA they all have the presumption of innocence. The Northern lads are no more guilty or innocent than Michael Jackson, OJ etc.

    It's ridiculous for a poster to say that the ones in the states are different to the ones in Ireland. All are not guilty according to the law. Notice I didn't say innocent. None of them were proven innocent. It's practically impossible to be proven innocent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,031 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    I could understand how Wade Robson might have done that as a 14-17 year old.

    It's harder for me to understand how he did it as a 23 year old.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Robson

    Robson testified in Michael Jackson's defense at the People v. Jackson trial in 2005. When Jackson was acquitted of child abuse in this case, Robson said he had slept many times in Jackson's room, but he had never experienced any assault.In 2013, Robson claimed the opposite; that Jackson had sexually abused him as a child.In 2017, however, a judge dismissed the lawsuit against the Jackson estate on the grounds that the accused parties could not have controlled Jackson's behavior. The judge's ruling was not based on the credibility of Robson's allegations.]


    I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.

    I can understand that, shame and denial are powerful things. They were made to feel like they were in a relationship with jackson. maybe even money for their silence. Both have said they didn't begin to process what had happened until after his death.


  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ Caspian Raspy Bullfighter


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    I can understand that, shame and denial are powerful things. They were made to feel like they were in a relationship with jackson. maybe even money for their silence. Both have said they didn't begin to process what had happened until after his death.

    It's documented that they were "dropped" at age 14 by Jackson. So how does that explain testifying on his behalf in an abuse case aged 23? Did they still believe, aged in their 20's that they were "in a relationship" with MJ?


    You're the one who has suggested "money for silence"- not me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,818 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    I've never liked Michael Jackson, even in the early 80s- so absolutely no interest in "defending" him now. But it does confuse me how a 23 year old stood up for MJ and testified as part of his defence team in an abuse case and then 8 years later, claims the opposite.


    I'm of the same thought. The guy is a liar one way or the other. Hard to figure out the truth there.

    Many celebrities shared a bed with him and have insisted that nothing happened. More importantly for me is that their story never changed over the years or since his death. Macauly Culkin is one who to this day defends Jackson


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,031 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    It's documented that they were "dropped" at age 14 by Jackson. So how does that explain testifying on his behalf in an abuse case aged 23? Did they still believe, aged in their 20's that they were "in a relationship" with MJ?


    You're the one who has suggested "money for silence"- not me.

    Because they were ashamed and embarrassed. It's a fairly common feeling among abuse victims, especially those who were groomed.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ Caspian Raspy Bullfighter


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I'm of the same thought. The guy is a liar one way or the other. Hard to figure out the truth there.

    n

    Just to be crystal clear- I'm not calling him a liar. I'm only saying I find it "harder to believe" that a 23 year old could testify in the way he did - I can understand that as a 14 year old he may still be under MJ's "control"- that's all.

    It may well have a valid explanation, but I haven't heard that explanation yet from anything I've read online. So interested to see/hear what he says in subsequent interviews.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,031 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I'm of the same thought. The guy is a liar one way or the other. Hard to figure out the truth there.

    Many celebrities shared a bed with him and have insisted that nothing happened. More importantly for me is that their story never changed over the years or since his death. Macauly Culkin is one who to this day defends Jackson

    That doesn't mean anything imo. Abusers are skilled at picking out victims, it's not like they abuse every child they see. They go for the most vulnerable. And of course in this case its great for him to have a couple of high profile people who can talk about how he didn't abuse them so therefore must be innocent.


  • Posts: 8,856 ✭✭✭ Caspian Raspy Bullfighter


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Because they were ashamed and embarrassed. It's a fairly common feeling among abuse victims, especially those who were groomed.

    How does being "ashamed" and "embarrassed" prompt you to get on the stand and confess under oath, in defence of MJ, at the age of 23? I haven't watched the documentary but nothing released by the media points to that so far.

    Very happy to be corrected on this BTW, as I do think MJ was a low-life, but I just haven't seen any clear explanation online so far regarding his testimony at MJ's abuse trial.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 342 ✭✭VeryTerry


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    It's wrong to suggest that any of them are guilty.

    No it's not. The legal system isn't infallible as you found out yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,818 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Just to be crystal clear- I'm not calling him a liar. I'm only saying I find it "harder to believe" that a 23 year old could testify in the way he did - I can understand that as a 14 year old he may still be under MJ's "control"- that's all.


    I haven't seen it myself but there are two adult accusers. Both swore under oath that he never touched them. Both have changed their story.
    Jacksons estate point out that the movie hangs solely on these two liars. I use liars because they are either lying now or they perjured themselves in court so liars one way or another. The estate points out that no one else was interviewed for this movie. Just the two who swore under oath that he didn't touch them.

    I've no idea who did what. No one here does.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,364 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    There’s nothing innocent about a grown man sleeping in the same bed as young boys, having alarms and censors fitted so he knew when people were approaching his bedroom, and having his whole house kitted out like a children’s fantasy wonderland. He was a paedophile.

    I can't believe how people come out saying 'xyz, happened, or such and such is not normal, he's a paedophile'. Where they there or something? Or are they just thinking they're putting 2 & 2 together so that's how it must have been and that allows them to make a matter of fact statement? Thats a rhetoric question btw.

    Especially when its about someone who's dead and cant defend themselves or sue for slander I think its pretty low.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭foxy06


    The crazy thing is even if he only shared a bed with them and didn't abuse them it's still not bloody right. Even if he had only done the things he has actually admitted to he is still a pervert. The man was a predator and his fans are blind to it because they just don't want to believe it. Change the person from Michael Jackson famous singer to Mick who lives on his own down the road and then everyone would agree to what he really is. A paedophile.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,818 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    VeryTerry wrote:
    No it's not. The legal system isn't infallible as you found out yourself.


    Yes it is wrong to say that they were guilty. If you said the same here about the rugby players you'd be banned (I'm not trying to moderate here). If you said that the rugby players were guilty on social media you could be sued. It is most definitely wrong to say that someone found not guilty is guilty.

    The legal system is anything but perfect I totally agree. In Ireland, UK and the States we have reasonable doubt. This allows guilty people, particularly in rape cases to go free. This is terrible but this ensures that innocent people don't go to jail. I'd rather have 10 guilty on the streets than one innocent in jail.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,364 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    foxy06 wrote: »
    The crazy thing is even if he only shared a bed with them and didn't abuse them it's still not bloody right. Even if he had only done the things he has actually admitted to he is still a pervert. The man was a predator and his fans are blind to it because they just don't want to believe it. Change the person from Michael Jackson famous singer to Mick who lives on his own down the road and then everyone would agree to what he really is. A paedophile.

    But how can you 'agree' on something you simply cannot know? You can believe he is a paedophile but you cant make that a matter of fact statement.

    There is a good chance he was. But by all accounts he was pretty messed up in the head and behaved in many ways like an adult child. Like this whole Peter Pan obsession and the Kinderland mansion. Thats not really something someone would do who simply wants to fiddle with children. He had tons of money and all sorts of means to do that in different ways I'm sure.

    Like I said one would think he was, I have to agree on that, but you just don't know. But of course nowadays everyone knows. Especially on the internet.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    foxy06 wrote: »
    The crazy thing is even if he only shared a bed with them and didn't abuse them it's still not bloody right. Even if he had only done the things he has actually admitted to he is still a pervert. The man was a predator and his fans are blind to it because they just don't want to believe it. Change the person from Michael Jackson famous singer to Mick who lives on his own down the road and then everyone would agree to what he really is. A paedophile.

    So if he didn't actually do anything he's a pervert and paedophile .
    Big contradiction there No ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement