Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 · 27-01-2019 11:01pm

Deleted User wrote:

Only point I was making was- BorneTobyWilde stated "If someone is a child abuser and they face trial there is no way they walk free".

I totally disagree with his statement. Because of reasonable doubt plenty get off

Sleeper12 · 27-01-2019 11:18pm

NickD wrote:

You are literally ignoring the rest of my comment in order to push completely irrelevant rhetoric about Paddy Jackson.

The lads are the same as OJ. All were found not guilty & all including OJ has the presumption of innocence according to the law. Why you insist that there is a difference is beyond me.

NickD wrote:

I'll repeat it. OJ and R Kelly admitted what they did. R Kelly wrote a 19 minute disturbing song called 'I admit' OJ wrote a book called 'If I did it' and gave an interview where he described the murder.

Er, no they didn't.

Being totally honest I know nothing about R Kelly but I will say releasing a song called I admit isn't admitting anything. On a google search I find "Kelly does NOT make any criminal admissions but instead denies allegations of domestic violence. Have you even heard this song? Listen to the lyrics in future before you state someone admitted a crime. Again he has the assumption of innocence.

Again you are totally mistaken when you suggest OJ admitted murder. In an interview OJ hypothetically admitted to the crime.

Do I need to post the meaning of hypothetical?

In the real world OJ never confessed to anything. Legally he's not guilty and has the presumption of innocence.

R Kelly & OJ are legally in the exact same boat as Paddy Jackson & Co. They all have presumption of innocence.

joeguevara · 27-01-2019 11:41pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I totally disagree with his statement. Because of reasonable doubt plenty get off

And that is what our legal system is built on. It is better to let 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail.

Paddy Cow · 27-01-2019 11:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

23 is an adult but still very young and at that age, highly impressionable and susceptible to influence by older adults. Vulnerable kids who have been groomed/abused/had no proper guidance throughout their teens haven't formed normal boundaries.

This definitely happened to Michael. We'll never know what happened with those boys but we do know that Michael was abused by his father and the industry in his formative years and it fcuked him up so badly he had surgery so he didn't look like his father and even changed his race. He turned his house into a play house and found it normal to sleep with kids in his bed. It's like he was trying to recreate the childhood he never had.

I'm not excusing him in the slightest. His behaviour was creepy on every level, even if he had innocent intentions. I can understand though why his "victims" at 23 would still defend him. People really come into their own in their 30's. We look back at our 20's and wish we could go back and advise our younger self. I can completely understand why people that young would see nothing wrong with what happened and then ten years later think it was wrong.

Maybe Micheal never molested or had sex with the boys but it was still wrong that he was sleeping in bed with them. Why would any man (or woman) want to sleep with children that are not your own??? And where were their parents?????

Adamocovic · 28-01-2019 12:06pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If memory serves the child lied by saying that there was something unusual or a birthmark on his penis. Something that would positively identify Jackson.

Maybe I'm miss remembering it. Happy to be corrected on this

I thought this too. I thought the description he gave and drawings he drew were determined to be accurate by the authorities, but after the out of court settlement the family wouldn't co-operate with the authorities any more.

I'm interested in seeing the documentary, despite my love of his music I always just found it hard to be so sure as some are about his innocence. Discussed with a friend who backs him 100%. The way he talks about knowing Michael Jackson makes it sound like they were friends or something, like phrases such as "Michael wouldn't do that, it's not his character, they just exploited his kindness". Frankly I've no idea what he was like, never met him.

Maybe I'm too cynical but the whole Neverland thing and hanging out with 10-15 year old boys never sat well with me. I know Carrie Fisher claimed:

I never thought that Michael's whole thing with kids was sexual. Never. As in Neverland. Granted, it was miles from appropriate, but just because it wasn't normal doesn't mean that it had to be perverse

Not being normal is key here. I imagine this documentary will kick up a lot of fuss. But I will say I find it odd so many people are so sure he hasn't done anything and defend him quite vigorously.

Feisar · 28-01-2019 12:32pm

I think he was an oddball that didn't have a childhood. I don't think there was anything sinister going on however that's just the thought of a random lad who never met the man or anyone that was in Neverland.

This thread is the first I heard about alarms and stuff to warn if people were approaching, hmmm.

valoren · 28-01-2019 12:43pm

It is for me the culmination of what happens when you surround yourself with 'yes' men/women.
It's helpful to understand how he grew up with the constant touring. That is not a conducive environment to mature in. We can all grasp that.

What Jackson needed was an enforcer, a bad cop staffer which he never seemed to have. Someone who had the authority to call him out, without being fired. I am sure there were people who acted responsibly but they were likely wasting their time. When he wanted to have sleepovers with boys then someone needed to take him aside and explicitly tell him WT actual F are you doing? He needed an adult in the room. He was so obscenely wealthy he could do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. Whether he is a predator or not I am not sure.

I think he was a pretty warped and naive individual with enough power, fame and status to indulge his weird opinions and bizarre attitude with anyone tackling and following through on his peculiar habits not lasting too long on the payroll. Given such a situational environment, he readily exposed himself to accusations and sure enough they came coming. Whether they are true or not those accusations, given his strange lifestyle and status, would automatically have credibility with a common sense thinking public. He may have been a musical genius but rationally he was a fool.

By the time the Bashir documentary aired, he no longer had the status he enjoyed at the height of his fame. His status was that of a reclusive living 'legend' i.e. he was no longer recording half-decent music, wasn't touring and his public forays would have been to collect lifetime achievement awards and attend tribute shows and such.

He needed to be candid with the public as in "Yes, I am a weird person with a bizarre lifestyle. I understand why people might think me as being wacko jacko and unfortunately this has exposed me to false accusations of being a sexual predator which is not true.....etc.....etc". Instead, on the Bashir doc, he doubled down, counter attacked by adopting the attitude that we should all be like children, that we should all sleep together and that it is all love....and, provocatively, he said if anyone didn't subscribe to that then they were ignorant, that if they deduced sexual impropriety then they were ignorant. He was still indulging himself, still surrounded by yes men and it was like a red flag to a bull where he now became a trophy hunt for prosecutors eager for a big kill. He suffered from the stress of it, got vindicated in court but at a cost to his health. Sympathy can only be in short supply. It was all his own doing.

Motivator · 28-01-2019 1:23pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Michael Jackson was already cleared of charges by a court. Several of the big name kids he was friends with to this day go on the record stating nothing happened.

Huge difference between Jackson and Saville.

Maybe they proclaim his innocence because the don’t want the world to know he was shagging them when they were 8. I find it too much of a coincidence that a large number of the famous child actors he was “friends” with developed drink and drug problems - Feldman, Caulkin etc.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 28-01-2019 1:25pm

Motivator wrote: »

Maybe they proclaim his innocence because the don’t want the world to know he was shagging them when they were 8. I find it too much of a coincidence that a large number of the famous child actors he was “friends” with developed drink and drug problems - Feldman, Caulkin etc.

Lots of child actors do.

Remember though, you can’t defame the dead.

jmayo · 28-01-2019 1:27pm

You didn't have to be a rocket science or more correctly a student of Sigmund Freud to take one look at the likes of Jackson or Saville to see they were more than a little weird.

And to me straight away because of that I would not have allowed my kids hang out with them and certainly not stay in their homes.

Yet parents agreed to letting their kids stay with Jackson?
Why ?
What were they hoping to gain, what benefits did they see their kids gaining by hanging out with huge megastar with loads of dosh ?

Would these parents have allowed their kids stay down the road with some weird dude with a normal job ?
Would they fook.

To me the parents were basically pimping their kids.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 1:28pm

valoren wrote: »

By the time the Bashir documentary aired, he no longer had the status he enjoyed at the height of his fame. His status was that of a reclusive living 'legend' i.e. he was no longer recording half-decent music, wasn't touring and his public forays would have been to collect lifetime achievement awards and attend tribute shows and such.

Jackson never really toured as a solo performer, but when he did it was big. He wasn't prolific at the height of his fame at releasing studio albums either, he was most dominant in the 80s but only released 2 albums.

But his status was megalithic, before, during and after that interview.

Before his death he signed up for 10 concerts in the O2 Arena in London, this had to be changed to 50.

It sold out in 4 hours.

A lot of people it would seem never gave a fook about the allegations, either from the 90s or the 00s.

seamus · 28-01-2019 1:36pm

Jackson is dead ten years this year, and nothing "new" has ever come of the original rumours and suspicions around him.

Saville by contrast wasn't even dead a year when the information started to flow.

If there was anyone out there with a compelling and believable story about abuse by Jackson, there'd already be a Netflix documentary about what happened.

By all accounts there were hundred of kids who went to Neverland at one stage or another, and no reports of anything inappropriate from Jackson, unless you consider a grown man playing with kids to be inappropriate.

The original accusations came from a desperate parent's attempt to blackmail him, and just so happened to fall as paedo hysteria was starting to grow. So once the suspicion was planted on him, it didn't go away, even after it was known to be false and everyone else supported Jackson.

All of the evidence realistically points to a man who spent his entire adult life chasing a childhood that he never got to experience, and trying to save other children from the same fate. The point made above about child actors turning to drink and drugs suggests that Jackson had a keen sense for the kids that were being exploited - remember, he was one of them - and made a point of trying to save them.

At this point there is literally no reason for any sufferer of abuse by Jackson to remain quiet about it, and while the absence of noise doesn't prove innocence, it does suggest that there is no noise at all. If anything, the only "noise" that's been coming out is news of tremendous - and anonymous - generosity from Jackson towards children's charities and hospitals.

Adamocovic · 28-01-2019 1:42pm

seamus wrote: »

The original accusations came from a desperate parent's attempt to blackmail him, and just so happened to fall as paedo hysteria was starting to grow. So once the suspicion was planted on him, it didn't go away, even after it was known to be false and everyone else supported Jackson.

Maybe I missed this but was it confirmed to be false? i don't remember hearing much about it following the settlement.

At this point there is literally no reason for any sufferer of abuse by Jackson to remain quiet about it, and while the absence of noise doesn't prove innocence, it does suggest that there is no noise at all. If anything, the only "noise" that's been coming out is news of tremendous - and anonymous - generosity from Jackson towards children's charities and hospitals

I don't really agree. Jackson has a large amount of fans who adore him. Even look at this latest documentary. Increase in police protection of screenings in the event of protests, death threats sent to the director, and the Jackson estate preparing a media attack on the maker and supposed victims.

The first person to publicly accuse him I believe struggled afterwards with abuse and threats from his fanbase to an extent where they had facial re-structuring performed to hide their identity.

So whether or not anything sinister happened I can't say, but I can definitely say if it did there would be reason for victims to be afraid of coming forward.

valoren · 28-01-2019 1:42pm

I also think that given the recent focus on and appraisal of the toxic and abusive culture in the entertainment industry at large that there were elements within the industry, who are not household names, who were only too delighted that the media focus zeroed in on Jackson.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 2:07pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

I don't really agree. Jackson has a large amount of fans who adore him. Even look at this latest documentary. Increase in police protection of screenings in the event of protests, death threats sent to the director, and the Jackson estate preparing a media attack on the maker and supposed victims.

2 "protesters" showed up.

https://variety.com/2019/film/festivals/michael-jackson-documentary-protests-1203117962/

How to hype your film 101.

Adamocovic · 28-01-2019 2:11pm

Boggles wrote: »

2 "protesters" showed up.

https://variety.com/2019/film/festivals/michael-jackson-documentary-protests-1203117962/

How to hype your film 101.

Haha to be fair to them regarding hyping the film up it was the local Police who released the statement regarding worries of protests. Not them.

2 is gas to be fair! I think when it goes to a more mainstream release however you may see more. Maybe even 3.

Rubberchikken · 28-01-2019 2:16pm

its easy to say things about the dead - they cant degend themselves.

maybe theres some truth, maybe not.

i always enjoyed his music. will keep doing so.
even saw him in cork on the Bad tour. as a musician and performer he was excellent.
as a human being i think he missed out on a normal life. being surrounded by yes men who didnt or couldnt call him out on things may have contributed to a lifestyle that wasnt healthy or good. but who really knows?

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 2:41pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

I thought this too. I thought the description he gave and drawings he drew were determined to be accurate by the authorities, but after the out of court settlement the family wouldn't co-operate with the authorities any more.

I'm interested in seeing the documentary, despite my love of his music I always just found it hard to be so sure as some are about his innocence. Discussed with a friend who backs him 100%. The way he talks about knowing Michael Jackson makes it sound like they were friends or something, like phrases such as "Michael wouldn't do that, it's not his character, they just exploited his kindness". Frankly I've no idea what he was like, never met him.

Maybe I'm too cynical but the whole Neverland thing and hanging out with 10-15 year old boys never sat well with me. I know Carrie Fisher claimed:

Not being normal is key here. I imagine this documentary will kick up a lot of fuss. But I will say I find it odd so many people are so sure he hasn't done anything and defend him quite vigorously.

Interesting read on the penis thing https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

Dial Hard · 28-01-2019 2:51pm

jmayo wrote: »

Yet parents agreed to letting their kids stay with Jackson?
Why ?
What were they hoping to gain, what benefits did they see their kids gaining by hanging out with huge megastar with loads of dosh?

I think you've answered your own question there...

Adamocovic · 28-01-2019 2:54pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Interesting read on the penis thing https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

Now there's an odd sentence :pac:

What has my life come to?

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 2:59pm

Totally weirded out by anyone who forms any kind of defence for his behaviour, tbh.

seamus · 28-01-2019 3:00pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

Maybe I missed this but was it confirmed to be false? i don't remember hearing much about it following the settlement.

I was actually thinking of the second round of allegations. That was known to be false, the parents were petty criminals looking for a big payout.

The first set is a whole load of circumstantial stuff, that the boy involved is still reluctant to discuss it. The set up was shaky as fnck - the kid's father drugged him with barbituates and then allegedly obtained a confession from the kid that Jackson had abused him.
He called a friend and talked about taking on a case, how he'd be loaded and his wife would lose custody of his son.

Of course that doesn't mean it's not true - predators often seek out children who are in dire family circumstances - but it places big question marks over the whole thing.

The first person to publicly accuse him I believe struggled afterwards with abuse and threats from his fanbase to an extent where they had facial re-structuring performed to hide their identity.

That was the above father who drugged his son to get a confession. A strange character who killed himself not long after Jackson died.

There was no report that the actual child who accused Jackson ever took such extreme measures, so again calls the father's account into question.

The two individuals covered in this documentary already tried to sue the Jackson estate and lost.

So it also has to be viewed in this lens - are they genuinely looking to "get the truth out there", or do they see a way to cash in?

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 3:07pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

Now there's an odd sentence :pac:

What has my life come to?

You're taking the mickey

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 3:09pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Totally weirded out by anyone who forms any kind of defence for his behaviour, tbh.

What behavior is that?

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 3:17pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What behavior is that?

Sorry what part of sleeping in a bed beside pre pubescent boys do you find normal?

Adamocovic · 28-01-2019 3:18pm

seamus wrote: »

There was no report that the actual child who accused Jackson ever took such extreme measures, so again calls the father's account into question.

The two individuals covered in this documentary already tried to sue the Jackson estate and lost.

So it also has to be viewed in this lens - are they genuinely looking to "get the truth out there", or do they see a way to cash in?

Apologies, I must have mixed the two up, it was the father who went to extremes with the facial surgery.

I still stand by my point however. Whether or not anything occured like you said is difficult to determine. Is it legitimate or solely cash driven. Who knows.
However my argument was if in fact it was true then I think there would be reasons victims would be afraid to talk out and don't agree with people saying he's dead now 10 years so no reason for them to remain silent.

So many victims I imagine stay silent their entire lives, nevermind ones to celebrities or people with power, fans and money.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 3:45pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Totally weirded out by anyone who forms any kind of defence for his behaviour, tbh.

Wade Robson’s mother completely defended it.

To the press, police and grand jury.

I think that is a little hint of the people you are dealing with here.

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 3:46pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Sorry what part of sleeping in a bed beside pre pubescent boys do you find normal?

There's plenty of odd things about this mans life. I was just wonder what things you were talking about

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 3:47pm

It's not healthy for a grown man to have such interest in other people’s children. Regardless if he did anything or not. Personally I have believed him to be guilty for years. Neverland is the extravagant equivalent of a man driving around estates with “free ice cream” written across his van. Most adults love children and love their company, but most adults will also tire of children’s company and its normal to have a very limited appetite for the company of a child. There is nothing normal at all whatsoever about a grown man seeking out young children (always boys too) for company, inviting them around to stay with you, booking out hotel rooms with them and staging mock weddings. Then couple that with the fact Jackson was most likely sexually abused by his own father which increases his likelihood of abusing others.
Would you let your little kid go play in your neighbours yard if he had it kitted out like a children’s fantasy wonderland? Would you let them sleep in a bed with him, because after all, the poor man is just trying to recapture the lost innocence of his youth, sure god love him.
Of course you would not, because it’s totally and utterly fcuking creepy. And shame on the parents who handed their children up on a plate to have god knows what done to them by a grown man. They’re not blameless in this either.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:09pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Personally I have believed him to be guilty for years.

All the allegations against him were motivated by money, including the 2 in the new documentary

Even his sister who claimed he was a pedophile admitted she did it for money.

Why do you believe he is guilty and for how many years?

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:25pm

Boggles wrote: »

Why do you believe he is guilty and for how many years?

Because of everything I’ve outlined above

as well as everything I’ve read and watched down throughout the years. I’m not trying to convince anyone or change anybody’s minds. I’m just stating my views. My mind will never be changed. I will never be convinced of anything other than the fact he was a creepy pervert with an unhealthy interest and appetite for young boys. You can think what you like.

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:28pm

Boggles wrote: »

All the allegations against him were motivated by money, including the 2 in the new documentary

Even his sister who claimed he was a pedophile admitted she did it for money.

Why do you believe he is guilty and for how many years?

Exactly, looking at his 4 accusers:

Jordie Chandler - took $20m payout. If your child was molested would you accept money?!

Gavin Arvizo - family proven to have history of false sexual allegations and extortion. Full trial and Michael Jackson fully cleared of all charges.

James Safechuck and Wade Robson - Wade was 23 years old and testified under oath that Jackson never touched him and defended him, even making jokes during his testimony. Wade also tried to sue Michael Jacksons estate after he died for millions and this was thrown out of court. Then he tried to sue two of his companies and failed at that. If you were abused would you make a documentary about it and promote it WTF?

So out of the hundreds of children Jackson was involved with there are 4 accusers with zero evidence and ALOT of money involved.....

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:31pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Exactly, looking at his 4 accusers:

Jordie Chandler - took $20m payout. If your child was molested would you accept money?

More like, if you didn’t molest a child then why would you offer them hush money.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:34pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Because of everything I’ve outlined above as well as everything I’ve read and watched down throughout the years. I’m not trying to convince anyone or change anybody’s minds. I’m just stating my views. My mind will never be changed. I will never be convinced of anything other than the fact he was a creepy pervert with an unhealthy interest and appetite for young boys. You can think what you like.

I form my opinion based on evidence as do most rational people.

Being "creepy" does not make a person a child rapist. What exactly have you read and watched throughout the years that would make you think he was guilty?

The allegations against him were made or helped be made by fair shady individuals just looking to profit from him. You do concede right?

Jackson did do some things that would be considered odd, but there are explanations for it and on the balance of probabilities I don't think he was the world most elaborate pedophile who built a play ranch with the sole intention of raping children.

Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means put it up.

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:35pm

retro:electro wrote: »

More like, if you didn’t molest a child then why would you offer them hush money.

Because of exactly what's happened. Claims you know are false being made can still destroy a reputation.

He thought it would go away and he had the cash so why not.

When it happened again with Gavin Arvizo he refused to pay out as he knew it would keep happening and he put his faith into criminal justice system, at a massive cost to his health.

It's interesting that all 4 accusers have sued him for money, none of the cases do not involve money. Funny that...

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:38pm

Clearly the parents of the children in question did not have their children’s best interests at heart in the first place by letting them have sleepovers with a grown man who thought he was Peter Pan. So it surprises me not that they decided to accept $20mil in hush money to buy their silence.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:38pm

retro:electro wrote: »

More like, if you didn’t molest a child then why would you offer them hush money.

He didn't offer hush money, his lawyers did. Apparently it came out of some insurance fund.

Jackson is on record as saying he wanted to take it to court.

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:38pm

Boggles wrote: »

I form my opinion based on evidence as do most rational people.

Being "creepy" does not make a person a child rapist. What exactly have you read and watched throughout the years that would make you think he was guilty?

The allegations against him were made or helped be made by fair shady individuals just looking to profit from him. You do concede right?

Jackson did do some things that would be considered odd, but there are explanations for it and on the balance of probabilities I don't think he was the world most elaborate pedophile who built a play ranch with the sole intention of raping children.

Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means put it up.

There is no evidence.

Look at other high profile cases - Harvey Weinstein, Jimmy Saville. Once a few accusations were made a lot more came out, hundreds of victims - the floodgates opened up.

What happened with Michael Jackson? Nothing - no further victims, just the odd person trying to make money out of him, even when he's dead.

JP Liz V1 · 28-01-2019 5:39pm

Has Mac Culkin made any comment?

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:40pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Has Mac Culkin made any comment?

No, why would he? He's already on record stating his position so nothing new to say.

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 5:42pm

retro:electro wrote: »

More like, if you didn’t molest a child then why would you offer them hush money.

I don't know why he paid but you should try research the case online. You will be puzzled. Child said jacksons penis had different marks. Cops got kid to draw a picture of it. The Jewish boy drew a circumcised penis as most likely this is all he have know at this age. Jackson wasn't circumcised. Picture looked nothing like Jackson,s. The boys council didn't want the picture shown in court, not jacksons council.

It is a very interesting case. Nothing actually points to Jackson being guilty, yet he payed a huge payment. I can't tell you if he did it or not but the only thing that actually makes him look guilty is the payment. It looks like Jackson would have won the court case

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 5:45pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Has Mac Culkin made any comment?

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No, why would he? He's already on record stating his position so nothing new to say.

He repeated the same thing within the last few weeks. I wasn't sure why he'd come out with it again but now that I see this movie is out it explains why he defended Jackson again

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:45pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Clearly the parents of the children in question did not have their children’s best interests at heart in the first place

Well the father at least.

Drugged his child to get the "confession" out of him and some years later tried to kill him with a dumbbell.

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:45pm

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't offer hush money, his lawyers did. Apparently it came out of some insurance fund.

Jackson is on record as saying he wanted to take it to court.

Sorry what? Do you think lawyers can just offer up $20 mil of their client’s money without their client’s consent?

Ardent · 28-01-2019 5:47pm

I think the guy was completely innocent. Sure he was wacko - who wouldn't be after the childhood he had - but for me he was just a child in a man's body and needed the company of other kids. Maybe to re-live his lost childhood or something like that. Who knows, complex stuff.

No evidence for any of this obviously, but I believe it more than the claims of sexual abuse from clearly money-motivated folks.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:48pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Sorry what? Do you think lawyers can just offer up $20 mil of their client’s money without their client’s consent?

Lawyers are there to advise what is best for their client. There was no admission of guilt.

Jackson addressed it personally on TV, he wanted for it to go to court.

The case was solid, he probably would have won. But you never know I suppose.

Also the money apparently came from an insurance fund and wasn't 20 million.

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 28-01-2019 5:50pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM8EVIbNxk4
NSFW

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:52pm

It was another poster who stated the payout was to the sum of $20m, I’m just going with what they said. I don’t know the official figure.
The fact remains- he may have wanted to take it to court. But he didn’t. He settled and he bought silence. His lawyers cannot do this on his behalf without him consenting to the settlement. That is illegal, no matter where the money came from. He would had to have agreed on the settlement.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:58pm

retro:electro wrote: »

He would had to have agreed on the settlement.

If it came from an insurance company?

Nope.

SoundsRight · 28-01-2019 6:02pm

He's doing his moonwalk over burning coals down below as far as I'm concerned, with Jimmy Savile manning the turntables.

I'd be a bit suspicious of anyone who thought there was nothing sinister about a grown man having sleepovers with little kids.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments