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

13567117

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    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.

    Ok so here are the facts

    - a grown man befriended a multitude of young boys, and only boys, over the years. "Friendships" that ended once the boys hit puberty
    - the grown man shared a bed with these boys regularly
    - the bedroom where this took place was alarmed and had cameras outside the door to make the man aware if anyone was approaching
    - the man provided the boys with alcohol and pornographic material (never disputed and evidence of this was found)
    - several boys have accused this man of abusing them
    - the man paid large sums of money out of court to the families of these boys


    I mean, how can you deny that the evidence that he was a paedophile and sexual predator is overwhelming?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,820 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


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

    I tell you what. I don't know if he's guilty or not but I'd hate some of these posters on a jury if I was a defendant. They'd be building the gallows before the court case started


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


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    I mean, how can you deny that the evidence that he was a paedophile and sexual predator is overwhelming?

    I didn't deny that, if you read what I wrote. I said yes you would think he was. So that means you can strongly believe he was. I probably do too tbh. But you cannot know. In the eye of the law he was/is innocent. So I will not go around making matter of fact statements publicly that he was. Thats all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    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.

    If you just don't get how powerful the feelings of shame and embarrassment in abuse victims can be then you never will, and its pointless trying to change your mind.

    To me there is sufficient explanation as to why they may have lied previously.


  • Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    . It is most definitely wrong to say that someone found not guilty is guilty.

    How many changes was he charged with? How many victims were involved in the case? He was found not guilty of those particular charges. That does not make him not guilty of any offences!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 35,343 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    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.


    But if all you quote is a pack of lies, about bells, and whistles, and sensors then it just leads gullible people to believe a ''film'' instead of a court where facts rule, not fiction.
    He had the whole LAPD, FBI and CIA trying to bring him down in court, and they had nothing concrete to go on, even after raiding his home they found nothing like what is mentioned in this film. Plus Wade himself said nothing happened and defended him in court. I dunno who convinced Wade that he was abused, but he has been convinced, he now believes it. But even his lawsuit was laughed out of court. Fiction works very well in films, and its where his stories belong, but in in the real world in courts the facts rule.


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


    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.

    By taking into account what is known now about such behaviour, and adding the "balance of probability" factor, and taking into account his vast wealth and numerous hangers on who relied on his continued success for their next pay check and people beholding to him, then it is more likely than not, that he was.

    Of course no-one can say for certain- especially if you apply a very strict legal definition to proof. He's dead now. And we'll never absolutely know for sure with the current information known to us.

    But he brought an awful lot of this attention on himself and IMHO he deserves that negative attention. My own PERSONAL belief, is that he pushed the technical areas of law to its limit to hide his fascination and obsession with young boys.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,820 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    ceadaoin. wrote:
    I mean, how can you deny that the evidence that he was a paedophile and sexual predator is overwhelming?


    What evidence? You haven't presented any. He was found not guilty with all of the evidence you listed. He wasn't found guilty of showing porn, plying children with drink or doing anything wrong. The jury found that the evidence you listed as proof actually meant nothing. You know more than the jury that heard every detail?

    His only two accusers now, swore under oath that he never touched them in a court of law.

    Again I don't know if he is guilty or not.


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


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    If you just don't get how powerful the feelings of shame and embarrassment in abuse victims can be then you never will, and its pointless trying to change your mind.

    To me there is sufficient explanation as to why they may have lied previously.

    I was groomed at the age of 13 by a CIE bus conductor. So don't lecture me on feelings of shame.

    :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,611 ✭✭✭✭ERG89


    Sleeper12 wrote:
    I tell you what. I don't know if he's guilty or not but I'd hate some of these posters on a jury if I was a defendant. They'd be building the gallows before the court case started

    To be honest if someone in your life was inviting around children for sleepovers you'd be more than puzzled.
    Jackson was a genuinely outstanding musician (especially compared to the forgettable dross nowdays) but there are a few too many character foibles that point to something being not quite right with him.
    I find the people literally protesting the movie a bit lost as nobody knows for sure one way or the other but I wouldn't condone him having sleepovers with kids no matter how f**ked up his childhood likely was or how well intended they may have been.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    I’ve always been a fan of MJs music and that’s not something I’m ashamed of - you have to separate the music and the man.

    As a person though there’s no denying he was one seriously disturbed individual. I don’t if anyone has seen the interview with Michael Bashir - it made my skin crawl.

    There’s no question that how he behaved with children was completely inappropriate and inexcusable and 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,820 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    bubblypop wrote:
    How many changes was he charged with? How many victims were involved in the case? He was found not guilty of those particular charges. That does not make him not guilty of any offences!

    How many charges was he found guilty of is mores the point


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



    There’s no question that how he behaved with children was completely inappropriate and inexcusable and 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.

    Money they were only interested in the money for themselves and not their children , especially in America litigation is more important than actual justice ,


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Gatling wrote: »
    Money they were only interested in the money for themselves and not their children , especially in America litigation is more important than actual justice ,

    I find hard to believe any parent would put money before taking down the sicko who abused their child.

    It’s the only aspect of the whole case that makes me question whether Jackson’s interactions with the children, whilst totally inappropriate and creepy, went as far as actual sexual abuse.

    I have no doubt he was in the process of grooming the children though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    In this era of perpetual pedophile hysteria, where facebook users post about suspected predators in their locality driving around in white vans, where vigilantes go online to catch paedophilles by posing as children, it is laughable in the extreme to say that there are those who don't want to believe that Jackson was a paedophille because they liked his songs.

    I'll believe Jackson was a paedophille when it's proven in a court of law and not a moment before and certainly not by any of the so called evidence that has been presented in this thread. Odd behavior does not prove someone is a nonce.

    Before the rumors surfaced Michael Jackson was adored by his fans but equally hated by those who weren't into his musical style. It was like you were either one or the other. The first thing a MJ hater will say in criticism of his music is 'hehe owh'. Something he introduced into his music after a decade of success, his Bad album I think.

    This film is about as low as you can get in a movie documentary. The idea that one of the biggest stars if not the biggest got away with sexually abusing kids in the US is frankly ludicrous. If it were true there would have to be one hell of a cover up involving law enforcement and the justice system. I haven't seen the film but if it doesn't expose a cover up involving those parties then this movie is nothing more a tabloid piece of trash. Why would anyone come out in a movie documentary about being abused when ppl who have been abused usually say they don't wan't to talk about it because of the shame, yet these accusers are willing to tell all in a film getting as much publicity as possible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,277 ✭✭✭Your Face


    MJ more or less got away with it.
    A real smooth criminal that lad.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭orourkeda1977


    trouble shamone


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,820 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    ERG89 wrote:
    To be honest if someone in your life was inviting around children for sleepovers you'd be more than puzzled. Jackson was a genuinely outstanding musician (especially compared to the forgettable dross nowdays) but there are a few too many character foibles that point to something being not quite right with him. I find the people literally protesting the movie a bit lost as nobody knows for sure one way or the other but I wouldn't condone him having sleepovers with kids no matter how f**ked up his childhood likely was or how well intended they may have been.

    Guilty or not I don't know.

    The man left himself wide open to be accused. He was an utter fool for that. Even if he is guilty he could have done more to make things look more normal.

    I've read rape cases here in Ireland where the defendant (found not guilty) left themselves wide open like this. I have little sympathy for them and their predicament. I have no Time for "oh the poor man. His reputation is now in tatters". There is personal responsibility for the man & woman.. I've said earlier that I wouldn't dream of even talking to a child I don't know without my wife besides me. I'd never be in a position where I could be accused.

    I do remember finding a small child crying in a shopping centre in swords. He'd strayed from his mam. She was in Dunnes and he was in the mall. The mall was crowded but I saw him first. Careful not to lay a finger on him I tried to reassure him that we'd find his mam. Next thing a woman grabbed his hand and started pulling him away from me. I'll never ever forget the look she gave me. I felt like she was looking at those kids that took Jamie bulger. To her I was a paedophile. Next thing the boys mother came out & everyone was happy. I'll never forget the look she gave me & how it felt to be thought of as a monster even if it was just for moments.


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


    I find hard to believe any parent would put money before taking down the sicko who abused their child.

    People who are only interested in themselves and they will happily sign a non disclosure agreement and tell anyone sorry we can't speak about what happened ,but we're now 20milllion richer ,
    Meanwhile the suspected child abuser gets off Scott free and can carry on abusing but wait we only wanted justice for our child ,
    But took money instead ,

    Genuine people not a chance


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


    Some "Big" statements there AllForIt- expect some backlash. :)
    AllForIt wrote: »
    I it is laughable in the extreme to say that there are those who don't want to believe that Jackson was a paedophille because they liked his songs.
    I haven't seen one person on this thread saying "he's not a paedophile because I liked his songs"


    I
    AllForIt wrote: »
    I'll believe Jackson was a paedophille when it's proven in a court of law and not a moment before and certainly not by any of the so called evidence that has been presented in this thread. Odd behavior does not prove someone is a nonce.

    Well you know that's not really possible, considering he's dead now. And anyway what "evidence" are you blabbering on about?
    AllForIt wrote: »
    This film is about as low as you can get in a movie documentary. The idea that one of the biggest stars if not the biggest got away with sexually abusing kids in the US is frankly ludicrous. If it were true there would have to be one hell of a cover up involving law enforcement and the justice system.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,032 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Gatling wrote: »
    People who are only interested in themselves and they will happily sign a non disclosure agreement and tell anyone sorry we can't speak about what happened ,but we're now 20milllion richer ,
    Meanwhile the suspected child abuser gets off Scott free and can carry on abusing but wait we only wanted justice for our child ,
    But took money instead ,

    Genuine people not a chance

    Or people who didnt have the money or resources for prolonged legal battles against an extremely rich and powerful person? Who didn't want to put their child through a trial where they would have to describe the abuse in detail and be scrutinised by lawyers and the public and painted as liars?

    I can see why genuine people would accept a settlement if they felt that there was little chance of legal recourse. Unfortunately it allows the opposing side to cast them as opportunistic liars whether that's true or not


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,820 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    AllForIt wrote:
    In this era of perpetual pedophile hysteria, where facebook users post about suspected predators in their locality driving around in white vans, where vigilantes go online to catch paedophilles by posing as children, it is laughable in the extreme to say that there are those who don't want to believe that Jackson was a paedophille because they liked his songs.


    I think you are stretching things there about people believing him because they like his music. Plenty of posters don't like him or his music.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,538 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    "waves pitchfork"

    Dig up his bones and throw him in jail, that'l teach him!


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


    Gatling wrote: »
    People who are only interested in themselves and they will happily sign a non disclosure agreement and tell anyone sorry we can't speak about what happened ,but we're now 20milllion richer ,
    Meanwhile the suspected child abuser gets off Scott free and can carry on abusing but wait we only wanted justice for our child ,
    But took money instead ,

    Genuine people not a chance

    So is that what you're saying happened in the Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck case?


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


    Interesting article from The Independent

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-documentary-allegations-film-movie-controversy-a8745881.html

    Attempting to dismiss the rumours once and for all, Jackson granted British journalist Martin Bashir unprecedented access to his theme park home for his film Living with Michael Jackson in 2003.

    Naive remarks made by Jackson on film only made matters worse and a complaint was duly made to Los Angeles police by Janet Arvizo, mother of 13-year-old cancer sufferer Gavin, who had spent time at Neverland as the pop star’s guest.

    Following a raid, the singer was subjected to a gruelling 16-week trial at Santa Barbara County Superior Court, accused of four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor, one count of abduction and one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive.

    Michael Jackson was found not guilty to all charges on 13 June 2005 but his career was left in tatters.

    Following his death from a painkiller-induced heart attack during rehearsals for an ambitious comeback tour in June 2009, Robson and Safechuck first made their claims against him.

    Robson has defended Jackson vehemently in the past: first at a press conference in 1993; on Jimmy Kimmel’s ABC chat show in 2003; and again when he testififed for the defence during Jackson’s trial.

    “His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever,” he said in tribute when the singer passed away.

    The lawsuit he brought in 2013 therefore came as a suprise. In it, he alleged two Jackson companies, MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures, had been used as a ploy to lure children to Neverland so the star could molest them.
    [


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


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Or people who didnt have the money or resources for prolonged legal battles against an extremely rich and powerful person? Who didn't want to put their child through a trial where they would have to describe the abuse in detail and be scrutinised by lawyers and the public and painted as liars?

    They just had to go to the police and follow it through to trial ,

    not seek money first again look at the saville case and actually Greenfield fire, victims come out of the woodwork where easy money is to be found ,


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,242 ✭✭✭AllForIt



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

    So why the film then blabbermouth? Truth by Hollywood? :)

    If you going to backlash your going to have to do a bit better than that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭orourkeda1977




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 81 ✭✭PingTing comes for Fire


    joeguevara wrote: »
    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.

    There must be royalties and that kind of thing incoming on a yearly basis?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,820 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Following a raid, the singer was subjected to a gruelling 16-week trial at Santa Barbara County Superior Court, accused of four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor, one count of abduction and one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive.


    Didn't the kid describe Jacksons penis?

    If memory serves Jackson had to have his penis examined and photographed. The penis described by the kid looked nothing like Jacksons.

    I definitely think that kid & his parents made the whole thing up.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement