Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 9:35pm

retro:electro wrote:

His signature was on the form. Thereâ€™s an abundance of evidence, recorded conversations and public statements that proves he knew exactly what was going on. Strange he didnâ€™t sue..

You can not stop your insurance company from paying out. This has been covered many times on the legal forum.

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 9:36pm

Boggles wrote: »

What form?

His signature is on the settlement.

Reference to Civil Settlement Amounts and Accompanying Documents”, filed by the defense on January 26, 2005. The reply states that

“…insurance carriers rarely if ever sign civil settlements involving their insured because their only interest is to get a release from the claimant, and the issue here is not who signed the settlement, but who paid for the settlement.”

For more clarity, if the Defense’s reply claims that insurance companies are interested in releases but not settlements (the argument being used as an ‘out’ to explain why there was no attorney for or representative of an insurance company as a signee of the settlement documents), and if the document in question was a release, it would be expected that some signature from the insurance company that had allegedly muscled Jackson into settling would be on that release. Taking the Defense’s argument, without the signature on the ‘release’ denoting the insurance company, it is reasonable to say that Jackson was the payer of the settlement, not the insurance company, thus validating the Prosecution’s desire to use the settlement — in the event that it is provable that Jackson willfully entered into that agreement and paid the Chandlers

So yeah. I’m really not interested in playing conspiracy ping pong with you.

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 9:39pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You can not stop your insurance company from paying out. This has been covered many times on the legal forum.

You’ve misinterpreted my point. I said they cannot settle on his behalf, as in, they cannot forge a document and sign his signature. The settlement was signed by Jackson. Not the insurance carrier.

KevinCavan · 28-01-2019 9:43pm

Was he a better person when he was black? Was it when he turned white that he became a real bastard?

Boggles · 28-01-2019 9:45pm

retro:electro wrote: »

His signature is on the settlement.

Reference to Civil Settlement Amounts and Accompanying Documents”, filed by the defense on January 26, 2005. The reply states that

“…insurance carriers rarely if ever sign civil settlements involving their insured because their only interest is to get a release from the claimant, and the issue here is not who signed the settlement, but who paid for the settlement.”

For more clarity, if the Defense’s reply claims that insurance companies are interested in releases but not settlements (the argument being used as an ‘out’ to explain why there was no attorney for or representative of an insurance company as a signee of the settlement documents), and if the document in question was a release, it would be expected that some signature from the insurance company that had allegedly muscled Jackson into settling would be on that release. Taking the Defense’s argument, without the signature on the ‘release’ denoting the insurance company, it is reasonable to say that Jackson was the payer of the settlement, not the insurance company, thus validating the Prosecution’s desire to use the settlement — in the event that it is provable that Jackson willfully entered into that agreement and paid the Chandlers

So yeah. I’m really not interested in playing conspiracy ping pong with you.

:pac:

Post up the whole document.

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 9:53pm

Also, let’s not forget what Jackson himself said. In his interview with Diane Sawyer in 1995 when he gave his reason for settling:
“So what I said…I have got to do something to get out from under this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies. So what I did – we got together again with my advisers and they advised me, it was hands down, a unanimous decision – resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years”

When the settlement documents were leaked in June 2004, he released a statement:
Jackson did not deny the amount that he reportedly paid, and said he settled the case only so he could move on with his life.
“I have always maintained my innocence, and vehemently denied that these events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my life and career.“

It seems more than obvious that the settlement was negotiated by the two parties and not an ominous and mysterious external company.

And finally..

BorneTobyWilde · 28-01-2019 10:31pm

Jackson and The Make a Wish Foundation worked together for years, 1000's of kids visited Neverland, not just the 1 or 2 liars. He helped a lot of sick and dying children including Ryan White. When Ryan died Michael rang Donald and asked him could he fly him to Indiana so he could visit Ryans family and go to funeral. Donald said no problem, I'll come with you my friend, so both flew down on Trumps plane. I dunno any other celebrity that would do the things Michael did. He really has done so much and given so much to charities and children all over the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYNI2RTdNfU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrU2K-L2If8

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 11:02pm

In the case of a football coach who spent years dedicating his time to training children, but is found to be grooming and sexually abusing just one. You don’t give them credence with respect to the amount of children they didn’t manage to abuse. The fact that they abused any at all is what matters, not the inconsistency in relation to how many they had access to.
A profile of a molestor is consistent with someone who seeks out opportunity to be around children, gains insight into their particular vulnerabilities and gets pleasure solely by being around them; he doesn’t have to abuse everyone in sight. I’m sure Jackson was perfectly capable of being around some children and not abuse them, he shouldn’t be applauded for that.

fin12 · 28-01-2019 11:11pm

I recommend people read this book. The author was convinced at the start of the book that Michael had molested chirldren but by the end of the book was convinced of his innocence.

If Michael was a devious peadophil why would he openly let the whole world know he slept with children in his bed that he loved hanging out with children and identified with children more than adults. He let this be known because he knew it was all innocent and had nothing to hide. It was his advisors and the people who were around him are at fault, they should have never allowed Michael to be in a position where he could be taken advantage of the parents of these kids he hung out with.

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 11:13pm

During & after the first case, in 93 I think it was, I was sure of his guilt. Paying that money was an admission of guilt in my mind. All of these years later I'm not so sure. I'm older & not as easily swayed by tabloid reporting. I have since researched it somewhat myself and apart from the payment there is nothing to make me think he did it. The kid lied about seeing his penis. It was nothing like he described.

The 2nd case was a farse. Child & parents lied through their teeth. I don't think anyone believes that he was guilty in that case.

Gwynplaine · 28-01-2019 11:16pm

If they ever make a biopic, who will they get to play him?

fin12 · 28-01-2019 11:16pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

During & after the first case in 93

No the 2005 trial aswell.

28-01-2019 11:21pm

fin12 wrote: »

I recommend people read this book. The author was convinced at the start of the book that Michael had molested chirldren but by the end of the book was convinced of his innocence.

If Michael was a devious peadophil why would he openly let the whole world know he slept with children in his bed that he loved hanging out with children and identified with children more than adults. He let this be known because he knew it was all innocent and had nothing to hide. It was his advisors and the people who were around him are at fault, they should have never allowed Michael to be in a position where he could be taken advantage of the parents of these kids he hung out with.

hiding in plain sight.

ceadaoin. · 28-01-2019 11:23pm

fin12 wrote: »

I recommend people read this book. The author was convinced at the start of the book that Michael had molested chirldren but by the end of the book was convinced of his innocence.

If Michael was a devious peadophil why would he openly let the whole world know he slept with children in his bed that he loved hanging out with children and identified with children more than adults. He let this be known because he knew it was all innocent and had nothing to hide. It was his advisors and the people who were around him are at fault, they should have never allowed Michael to be in a position where he could be taken advantage of the parents of these kids he hung out with.

Because that was part of his manipulation IMO. He created this persona of a Peter pan type eccentric, who was just so innocent that the didn't see anything wrong with sharing a bed with kids. It allowed him to hide in plain sight.

Come on now, the guy was a business mogul worth millions . He was no dummy. He knew what he was doing and his staff enabled him and were complicit also.

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 11:24pm

fin12 wrote:

No the 2005 trial aswell.

Sorry. My mistake. I posted before I'd finished what I was saying

fin12 · 28-01-2019 11:28pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Because that was part of his manipulation IMO. He created this persona of a Peter pan type eccentric, who was just so innocent that the didn't see anything wrong with sharing a bed with kids. It allowed him to hide in plain sight.

Come on now, the guy was a business mogul worth millions . He was no dummy. He knew what he was doing and his staff enabled him and were complicit also.

Sorry somebody can be very smart intellectually and in their professional career but when it comes to everyday life and being street wise can be very innocent and naive. Michael was an extremely talented individual and smart that does not mean he can not be taken advantage of in his personal life.

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 11:30pm

ceadaoin. wrote:

Come on now, the guy was a business mogul worth millions . He was no dummy. He knew what he was doing and his staff enabled him and were complicit also.

He was almost bankrupt in the end. He'd go on a shopping spree & as he'd leave one area of the department store his assistant would try put stuff back on shelves. He was no business mogul. He had to agree to the "this is it" shows even though he wasn't mentally or physically fit enough for so many shows. Hence the heavy drugs to keep him going

fin12 · 28-01-2019 11:32pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He was almost bankrupt in the end. He'd go on a shopping spree & as he'd leave one area of the department store his assistant would try put stuff back on shelves. He was no business mogul. He had to agree to the "this is it" shows even though he wasn't mentally or physically fit enough for so many shows. Hence the heavy drugs to keep him going

Ya he was baked into a corner in the end, I remember when his comeback was announced and he was going to be doing all this shows and seeing him so Ill and thin, I couldn’t believe that they had booked him in for all these shows, I said that man can’t even do one show, they killed him in the end. Just like Elvis, Elvis was extremely sick in the end, but his manager was the biggest piece of sh*t u could ever meet.

Mam of 4 · 28-01-2019 11:35pm

Not debating the guilty or innocent thing tbh , I personally think he was guilty .
I'm just going to ask this question though .

Why , allegedly , show the young boys pornography at all , ever ?
Was it to excite them and get to ask questions , want to act things out ? Let them think it was their idea ?

Not normal , by any standards , by anyone .

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 11:39pm

fin12 wrote:

Ya he was baked into a corner in the end, I remember when his comeback was announced and he was going to be doing all this shows and seeing him so Ill and thin, I couldnâ€™t believe that they had booked him in for all these shows, I said that man canâ€™t even do one show, they killed him in the end. Just like Elvis, Elvis was extremely sick in the end, but his manager was the biggest piece of sh*t u could ever meet.

I always found it strange. He was married to Lisa Marie for awhile and ended up almost exactly like her father Elvis in the end. That's some coincidence

cloudatlas · 28-01-2019 11:40pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4_BQdVsu0o

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 11:43pm

Mam of 4 wrote:

Why show the young boys pornography at all , ever ? Was it to excite them and get to ask questions , want to act things out ? Let them think it was their idea ?

Did he actually do this? He was never convicted of this. They raided his home. Seized computers but found no child porn of any kind.

ceadaoin. · 28-01-2019 11:49pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Did he actually do this? He was never convicted of this. They raided his home. Seized computers but found no child porn of any kind.

Well they found a naked photo of a child thought be one particular "friend" of his. And a couple of books common in nambla type circles featuring naked boys that aren't illegal but skirt the line.

The two books were The Boy: A Photographic Essay and Boys Will Be Boys. These books are classic examples of the type of materials many pedophiles own according to Bill Dworin, a 34-year veteran of the LAPD who has investigated more than 4,000 sexual exploitation cases. “Pedophiles will frequently have this material available because they can obtain it legally, it’s not illegal to possess”. [3].

The Boy: A Photographic Essay is a book compiled by two known pedophiles, Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew, under the pseudonyms Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson. More of their history can be found in this article.

Swithinbank and Nelson collated photos of boys, mainly from pedophile photographers Hajo Ortil, Karel Egermeier, Jos Le Doare, Jacques Simonot and others, and created The Boy. Around ten percent of the photos in the book are of nude boys, many of them with their buttocks or genitals displayed. The front cover features a naked boy with his buttocks exposed, wistfully staring into the ocean. This gives you an idea of the book’s intended audience.

In Boys Will Be Boys around ninety percent of the boys are naked. The worst images are far too lewd for us to publish here, and could possibly be illegal in many countries (reaching up to 6 on the COPINE scale). We talked with someone who has seen the book, who said, “This book is clearly targeted at pedophiles.

No images of child abuse though

But the porn he showed the kids to groom them was normal adult porn magazines and such. Allegedly

Mam of 4 · 28-01-2019 11:54pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Did he actually do this? He was never convicted of this. They raided his home. Seized computers but found no child porn of any kind.

I think Ceadoin answered this far better than I ever could tbh .
I should edit my post to say allegedly showed pornography .

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 11:57pm

ceadaoin. wrote:

But the porn he showed the kids to groom them was normal adult porn magazines and such. Allegedly

As I said none of this was proved in court. The 2nd case the child lied through his teeth as did the parents. I don't think anyone believed them. The jury who heard all of the evidence didn't believe them. That family were low life's. No one can deny that

Sleeper12 · 29-01-2019 12:16am

Mam of 4 wrote:

I think Ceadoin answered this far better than I ever could tbh . I should edit my post to say allegedly showed pornography .

I don't think you can even say allegedly once he's found not guilty. Allegedly is for before & during a trial. After the not guilty the alleged things are deemed not to be true. Do we still say Paddy Jackson allegedly raped that girl? We don't because a court of law has dealt with it & found him not guilty.

The court did not find that he showed porn to the boy. The court dealt with all of this already. Now years later you know better than the jury that heard & saw the evidence. They didn't read half truths in tabloid papers.

Mam of 4 · 29-01-2019 12:28am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't think you can even say allegedly once he's found not guilty. Allegedly is for before & during a trial. After the not guilty the alleged things are deemed not to be true. Do we still say Paddy Jackson allegedly raped that girl? We don't because a court of law has dealt with it & found him not guilty.

The court did not find that he showed porn to the boy. The court dealt with all of this already. Now years later you know better than the jury that heard & saw the evidence. They didn't read half truths in tabloid papers.

Pardon my ignorance in the misuse of words .
At least you've clarified it for me and I won't make that mistake again I'm sure ..

I never said I know better than the jury, I gave my opinion and asked a question , a reasonable question .

And judge , jury , public opinion aside , Michael Jackson was not innocent , IMO .
At the very least he was guilty of grooming , again imo , which I'm entitled to , the same as you and everyone else .

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 12:34am

Some of the jury members have some come out and said they regret their decision and that they do think he was guilty, and did at the time but didn't think the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

For me there are just too many things that indicate that he was an abuser. From his prediliction for befriending young pre pubescent boys who were replaced when they hit puberty, his behaviour with those boys - the bed sharing, showering with gifts etc, his possession of questionable books and magazines known to have been made by and marketed to paedophiles and worst of all, being accused of abuse by several children. They describe textbook grooming, so if they are lying they really did their homework. All those things together paint one picture

retro:electro · 29-01-2019 12:42am

Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean we all have to shut up and agree with the verdict.

Sleeper12 · 29-01-2019 12:59am

ceadaoin. wrote:

Some of the jury members have some come out and said they regret their decision and that they do think he was guilty, and did at the time but didn't think the evidence proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't believe this to be true. I don't suppose you have any links to this?

I do remember jury members saying afterwards that they brought the wrong case. In other words they believe there might be something there with other boys but this case was a scum family out for money. They were pretty certain that this was a fabricated case when talking to the press.

It's not uncommon for jury members to discuss the case with the media in the states. I haven't noticed it in other countries. I wonder if they are forbidden in Ireland.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments