Micky Jackson in trouble again

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

if there was sexual abuse involved I still don’t understand why any of the families involved settled.

If it were my child there would be no stopping me going after him. I understand the victims themselves being scared or ashamed but their parents surely can’t use that as an excuse.

Me too, but as a parent I would never have left my child go to sleepovers in his house in the first place, so you have to consider what kind of people these children had guiding them.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

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.....

Actually there were up to 20 payouts totalling $200 million or something like that. It's not just the 4 accusers who went public. I wouldn't be surprised if people are still receiving money for their silence.

He ticks most or all of the boxes for the pathological profile of a paedophile. To this day, the officers involved in the investigation believe him to be guilty. If he just wanted to be around kids then why was it only ever boys? Why were they dropped when they reached puberty? Why did he go to great lengths to be alone with them, even sharing a bed? Why did he show them pornography? Come on now, as if you would be ok with a man behaving in such a way with your own children or children in your family.

He groomed kids and their families, and then abused them, it's painfully obvious. Yet some people are still in denial. I just don't get it.

Cochran, Jackson’s lawyer was negotiating with Larry Feldman, the 13-year-old boy’s attorney, a courthouse colleague. In the end, he and Feldman hammered out a settlement in which the boy received an undisclosed sum and Jackson did not admit any guilt. “It was the only way to get the case off the front pages,” says Cochran. “I wanted Michael to be able to go on with his career”

Larry Feldman, attorney for Jordan Chandler, described signing the settlement:
“We signed off on the deal; that was it,” said Mr. Feldman, after a private afternoon meeting in the chambers of Judge David Rothman of Santa Monica Superior Court. Mr. Jackson’s two lawyers, Howard Weitzman and Johnnie Cochran Jr., were also at the meeting.

No mention of any mysterious insurance companies or reps.

Carl Douglas, one of Jackson’s defence lawyers
: “I remember sitting in private negotiations with Larry and three judges trying to work out some resolution to this case. I remember the sage words of one of the judges “It’s not about how much this case is worth; it’s about what it’s worth to Michael Jackson!” And ultimately that was an argument that had resonance as we bandied about some extraordinary numbers in 1993. The numbers were extraordinary for even 2010, but in 1993 they were really some fabulous numbers that were being bandied about.”[1]
The opposing lawyer, Carl Douglas and three judges? It’s worth to Michael Jackson? Where is the insurance company representative?

Let’s not forget Carl’s strongest statement as to why a settlement needed to be reached:
“…in our [Jackson’s defence lawyers] perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney’s office in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side”

Carl also said “I remember travelling to Las Vegas, and the Mirage hotel in January 1994, because I was the one that presented the settlement agreement to Michael.”

Again, no mention of any insurance company.

Strange.

What is more probable? The idea that there’s many dozens of opportunists who have no qualms about putting themselves and their children through the trauma of a trial in the hopes of acquiring some cash. Or the fact that the creepy man who built a children’s fantasy in his back yard, admitted to sleeping in the bed with them and “tickling” them while withdrawing interest when they reached puberty, actually did abuse them, and paid them off to keep quiet. Again, if it was John down the road most people would be in agreement that it’s extremely likely John is a paedo.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

Ardent wrote: »

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.

That is a very widely held assumption by people who believe MJ was innocent of the accusations, and it’s widely used as an explanation for Neverland and Michaels interest in spending time with young boys.

But think about it, it doesn’t actually make sense. A child in a mans body? No he was a man in a mans body. He fathered children, got married, had a successful career.

I think people who think this way definitely didn’t have any form of lost childhoods and had very innocent and lovely upbringings, which is great. But maybe making people a bit naive thinking that a lost childhood is an excuse for his behaviour

How can you believe anything Wade Robson says - he lied under oath and tried to sue Michael Jacksons estate for $1.6Bn.

A lot of info here completely discrediting him:

http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/338-busted-wade-robson-got-caught-hiding-evidence-and-shopping-a-tell-all-book

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/wade-robson-is-requested-to-admit-that-he-is-a-liar/

Sexual abuse survivors don't go around trying to sue people for $1.6Bn FFS.

retro:electro wrote: »

Personally I’d feel a bit icky defending a man who showed such an unhealthy interest in young boys and by all accounts had an extremely inappropriate relationship with them.

Of course I disagree with is close relationship with young boys and sleeping in their beds. It's creepy and weird. However I don't believe it was sexually motivated.

It doesn't make him a paedophile.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Jackson was in no way a childlike naive person.

Read any of the biogs of him. He was a cut throat businessman until he lost his sanity. Became a hardened drug addict for years then.

He had no qualms about setting private investigators and dodgy characters etc on ppl who crossed him.

In one word I’d describe him as devious.

Yes, even his high pitched childlike voice was put on. He spoke with a normal deep voice in private. Totally weird and creepy and very manipulative.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Really? That's interesting as it's the first I've ever heard of it.

Do you have evidence of these 20 payouts and $200m? Do you have links to support this claim?

Well of course I don't have "evidence". Do you have evidence that he didn't? Here is a link anyway


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michael-jackson-paid-134-million-in-payoffs-to-stop-up-to-20-sex-abuse-victims-speaking-out-say-10159103.html

iguana wrote: »

Neverland may have been created with nefarious intent but if it was, it was completely unnecessary. It's existence doesn't automatically show his guilt..

I never said it’s existence alone was evidence of guilt, but it was certainly It’s its existence along with an inappropriate interest in young boys, a desire to be in their company at all times, sleeping in a bed with them while admitting intimate and close contact, booking out hotel rooms and staging mock weddings, the millions in pay outs and his perpetual desire to be seen himself as a child, even wetting the bed and refusing to have his sheets changed that helped me form my opinion.

iguana wrote: »

There are numerous cases of people who have set up schools/group homes/orphanages/kids play programmes for entirely innocent reasons. Because they enjoy the company of the children and/or enjoy the activities themselves. Most parents send our kids off to school, to sports/dancing/music/art/etc training, scouts/brownies, etc into the company of adults who aren't necessarily even being paid for what they are doing. That's even in spite of the fact that there are many, many cases of people in those positions abusing children. We accept that in most cases it's simply an innocent case of an adult who enjoys the company of children and some children's activities.

Are all of these people also sleeping in the same bed as the children they are in a position of authority over? Because that’s what crosses the line from seemingly innocent behaviour into sinister and perverted behaviour. Again, enjoying the company of children, being involved in communal activities for the benefit of their health and wellbeing, and wanting to sleep in the same bed as them are two entirely different things. It’s not the existence of Neverland alone that gets my spidey senses tingling, rather a whole host of other behaviours and variables that point to the likelihood that his interest in children was not motivated by a desire to relive any lost innocence of childhood. I believe he had sinister intentions and I’ve yet to read anything that convinces me of the opposite.

retro:electro wrote: »

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

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?

retro:electro wrote: »

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.

retro:electro wrote: »

What are you talking about? His signature is on the bloody thing.

Settling allegations of child sex abuse, instead of fighting against them, is not conducive to a position of innocence

retro:electro wrote: »

Again, no mention of any insurance company.

Strange.

From a memorandum that came out in the 2005 trial.

The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson’s Insurance Company and was not within Mr.Jackson’s control. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr.Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is unfair for an insurance company’s settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson’s prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could NOT CONTROL NOR INTERFERE with his insurance carrier’s demand to settle the dispute”.

I doubt you have any actual interest in facts though, have you?

retro:electro wrote:

An insurance company cannot settle a claim on the behalf of their client without their consent. It’s unethical, immoral, and above all illegal. I know that doesn’t suit your narrative, but those are the facts. How do you proclaim his signature got on the form then? Unless Peter Pan flew in and signed it for him. What you’re quoting is all PR jargon put out by his lawyers. Sure Johnny Cochran defended him. He also defended OJ and we all saw how low he went then. He clearly has no morals or ethics.

Insurance companies settle claims against the policy holders wishes on a daily basis.

There must be dozens of threads here on boards.ie where posters don't want their insurance to settle but they do anyway. Policy holder has no say in the matter

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Insurance companies settle claims against the policy holders wishes on a daily basis.

There must be dozens of threads here on boards.ie where posters don't want their insurance to settle but they do anyway. Policy holder has no say in the matter

His signature was on the form. There’s an abundance of evidence, recorded conversations and public statements that proves he knew exactly what was going on. Strange he didn’t sue..

Boggles wrote: »

No it isn't and yes they can.

Dig up FFS!

They cannot forge your signature. They cannot supersede your desire to take a case to trial when you are being accused of something beyond the pale.