Micky Jackson in trouble again

Deleted User wrote: »

Some "Big" statements there AllForIt- expect some backlash.




Well you know that's not really possible, considering he's dead now. And anyway what "evidence" are you blabbering on about?



Jimmy Saville got away with it- same era, just different location in the world:)

Not as famous obviously, not as rich, but different legal system, more money, better lawyers- yeah, I could believe it.

Saville never faced trial, that is how he got away with it. If someone is a child abuser and they face trial there is no way they walk free. Evidence in such cases is damming, no way to deny it or defend it. Jackson faced trial and I recall lawyers on TV questioning how on earth this managed to get to trial with no actual evidence.

Gary Glitter faced trial and could not hide from the facts the evidence, Rolf Harris faced trial and could not escape the facts or evidence, Jackson faced trial and no one , not the LAPD, FBI, CIA could find any actual evidence against him. Some witnesses the prosecutors called dubbed them, and once on stand defended Michael.
Corey Haim & Corey Feldman are both victims of actual child abuse, both found solace in Michael, he helped them, both of them talked about Michael in glowing terms, how he was the opposite of others that abused them.

Even Wade Robson defended Michael at the trial, in fact he was the first one on the stand as Michaels lawyer wanted to put someone on stand first that would show just ridiculous the case was.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

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

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.

I also mentioned that R Kelly and OJ paid the families.

But please keeping sh1teing on about Paddy Jackson.

My point was not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

You have gone on some mad rant about the Irish and American justice systems because you didn't bother reading my full comment.

But please don't let me interrupt your row with yourself.

Edited to add, where did I say I wanted the lads in the North to be innocent? I couldn't pick them out of a line up and have no interest in them and didn't follow that trial. But thanks for assuming.

PlentyOhToole 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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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...