Micky Jackson in trouble again

Shemale · 05-04-2019 8:08am

AllForIt wrote: »

The idea that one of the biggest stars if not the biggest got away with sexually abusing kids in the US is frankly ludicrous.

Ever heard of Sir Jimmy Saville and R Kelly, there have long been rumours of all threes conduct. Its disgusting what people in positions of power / influence can get away with.

Or Harvey Weinstein getting away with sexual harassment for many years.

Its ludicrous to think this doesnt happen just because you like their music

Adamocovic · 05-04-2019 8:48am

Shemale wrote: »

Ever heard of Sir Jimmy Saville and R Kelly, there have long been rumours of all threes conduct. Its disgusting what people in positions of power / influence can get away with.

Or Harvey Weinstein getting away with sexual harassment for many years.

Its ludicrous to think this doesnt happen just because you like their music

Have to agree, whether he did these things or not we can only speculate, but I can't see how anyone can argue that it's ludicrous to think one of the biggest stars in the US was able to do these things and get away with it.

Countless of celebrities used their money, power and influence to keep quiet their sexual harassments. We've seen many brought to light of late and there is no doubt that there are many more that we don't know about.

I would have thought with revelations regarding many of them in the last number of years people's opinions that there was no way a celebrity would get away with these things would have been completely gone by now.

Flippyfloppy · 05-04-2019 8:50am

Shemale wrote: »

Ever heard of Sir Jimmy Saville and R Kelly, there have long been rumours of all threes conduct. Its disgusting what people in positions of power / influence can get away with.

Or Harvey Weinstein getting away with sexual harassment for many years.

Its ludicrous to think this doesnt happen just because you like their music

In the case of Michael Jackson some people have fallen for his carefully marketed image, fallen hard!

hetuzozaho · 05-04-2019 9:00am

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

In the case of Michael Jackson some people have fallen for his carefully marketed image, fallen hard!

But the train station!! And one said on OATH that he was never abused.

Gwynplaine · 05-04-2019 9:03am

That Joe Biden video is freaky. I must read into it another bit.
Hiding in plain sight.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 10:25am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But the train station!!

TBF Reed claiming the abuse went on until Safechuck was 16/17, blows quite a sizable hole in the narrative.

Ursus Horribilis · 05-04-2019 11:14am

I doubt many people particularly care at this stage. By the time this documentary aired, most people had long since formed an opinion on Jackson. Mostly that he was a weirdo who deformed his face, lived a very strange life (facilitated by his stardom and vast bank balance) and had inappropriate friendships with children. Even if you don't believe he sexually abused them, the notion of a grown man sleeping in the same bed as unaccompanied minors does not sit well with most people. I doubt many beyond Jackson's fan base are still exercised by this documentary. Even if the allegations are disproved, it won't make people think Jackson wasn't a weirdo who had inappropriate friendships with children.

kunst nugget · 05-04-2019 11:27am

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I doubt many people particularly care at this stage. By the time this documentary aired, most people had long since formed an opinion on Jackson. Mostly that he was a weirdo who deformed his face, lived a very strange life (facilitated by his stardom and vast bank balance) and had inappropriate friendships with children. Even if you don't believe he sexually abused them, the notion of a grown man sleeping in the same bed as unaccompanied minors does not sit well with most people. I doubt many beyond Jackson's fan base are still exercised by this documentary. Even if the allegations are disproved, it won't make people think Jackson wasn't a weirdo who had inappropriate friendships with children.

Yeah, when all is said and done, the documentary didn't actually do anything to change my opinion of the man. I still feel the same way about him as I did before the documentary aired - that he was a guy whose stardom facilitated him being able to have extremely inappropriate relationships with children.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 11:34am

So what ye are saying is now that further cracks have started to appear and there is a credibility issue with the Director at the very least, nobody cares anymore and documentary didn't really matter anyway?

But yet here ye are posting in a thread about it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 11:36am

Gwynplaine wrote: »

That Joe Biden video is freaky. I must read into it another bit.
Hiding in plain sight.

Very creepy. Shudder.

Ursus Horribilis · 05-04-2019 11:48am

Boggles wrote: »

So what ye are saying is now that further cracks have started to appear and there is a credibility issue with the Director at the very least, nobody cares anymore and documentary didn't really matter anyway?

But yet here ye are posting in a thread about it.

It's questionable how many people really cared, even before the questions arose. Jackson is long dead so nobody can do anything to him. He did himself no favours when he was alive and there will forever be a stench around him. He didn't need a documentary to tarnish his legacy.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 11:57am

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

I doubt many people particularly care at this stage. By the time this documentary aired, most people had long since formed an opinion on Jackson. Mostly that he was a weirdo who deformed his face, lived a very strange life (facilitated by his stardom and vast bank balance) and had inappropriate friendships with children. Even if you don't believe he sexually abused them, the notion of a grown man sleeping in the same bed as unaccompanied minors does not sit well with most people. I doubt many beyond Jackson's fan base are still exercised by this documentary. Even if the allegations are disproved, it won't make people think Jackson wasn't a weirdo who had inappropriate friendships with children.

A very good point. I had already formed an opinion before this documentary myself personally.

And the second bolded bit too. I totally agree. Anyone who didn’t think he was a creep before this documentary wasn’t for turning. I’ve noticed with his most ardent defenders that they will often say “Nobody is denying he shared his bed with little boys!” but when you probe further about what that fact means, they get evasive. Like as if by acknowledging it, they don’t need to discuss it any further. When it brings to mind so many questions.

Boggles wrote: »

So what ye are saying is now that further cracks have started to appear and there is a credibility issue with the Director at the very least, nobody cares anymore and documentary didn't really matter anyway?

But yet here ye are posting in a thread about it.

If you look at the boards.ie threads about the documentary, after the initial flurry of posts, there was only a small number of us contributing. And I know what I thought about Jackson before the documentary. This was about these two men. But I believed others before them.

And I still believe both the men in the documentary, by the way. The nitpicking has left me unmoved. If James has got some details wrong, that doesn’t surprise me. And it certainly doesn’t invalidate his whole account. And he hasn’t made a statement himself. I’d be interested to hear what he has to say but I totally understand if he’s done with the publicity now.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 12:05pm

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

It's questionable how many people really cared, even before the questions arose. Jackson is long dead so nobody can do anything to him. He did himself no favours when he was alive and there will forever be a stench around him. He didn't need a documentary to tarnish his legacy.

Well no this is a pretty massive story TBF, it's also a long running story. You being on a actual thread about it trying to underplay is a tad funny.

But I'd argue there is 2 distinct stenches, inappropriate friendships and behavior with children is a completely different smell to buggery and forced oral sex.

But again I repeat, the allegation of abuse is only part of this tale. The just as hideous part is the allegation that there was 2 companies setup with the primary goal of grooming and delivering little boys to a prolific pedophile for rape, the people accused of operating the sophisticated ring are still alive.

So writing it off, as what harm if it is true or not, it's just a dead weirdo and people had there minds made up anyway misses a very wide part of the allegations.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 12:20pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well no this is a pretty massive story TBF, it's also a long running story. You being on a actual thread about it trying to underplay is a tad funny.

But I'd argue there is 2 distinct stenches, inappropriate friendships and behavior with children is a completely different smell to buggery and forced oral sex.

But again I repeat, the allegation of abuse is only part of this tale. The just as hideous part is the allegation that there was 2 companies setup with the primary goal of grooming and delivering little boys to a prolific pedophile for rape, the people accused of operating the sophisticated ring are still alive.

So writing it off, as what harm if it is true or not, it's just a dead weirdo and people had there minds made up anyway misses a very wide part of the allegations.

Wait, so if you believe these companies were set up then you must believe there was a recepient of their services. So what do you believe? It’s a bit unclear. I’m confused.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 12:21pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If you look at the boards.ie threads about the documentary, after the initial flurry of posts, there was only a small number of us contributing. And I know what I thought about Jackson before the documentary. This was about these two men. But I believed others before them.

Really? I think it overwhelmingly conclusive that they were criminals and grifters TBH.

Even taking the case in 2005, it was about as conclusive as you get. Jackson was completely exonerated, not just found "not guilty" IMO.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And I still believe both the men in the documentary, by the way. The nitpicking has left me unmoved. If James has got some details wrong, that doesn’t surprise me. And it certainly doesn’t invalidate his whole account. And he hasn’t made a statement himself. I’d be interested to hear what he has to say but I totally understand if he’s done with the publicity now.

It's not just nitpicking though is it? It is a bit disingenuous to write it off such.

There is certainly credibility issues there and now that has extended to the director and one thing that always raises a red flag, massive potential financial gain.

What you are saying is you believe them despite the credibility issues, that is different. That is up to you.

Many like myself are unconvinced. Now that doesn't make us ardent fanboys like you keep repeating, just skeptical given the actual evidence we know of.

Personally I don't know if Jackson molested kids or not or if he was just a creepy man trying to fix his banjaxed child hood.

But gun to head right now, I would think this particular allegation started as a con job that just snow balled.

The one question that no one seems to be able to answer is, Robson sealed his initial suit, if the "paedo rings" had just thrown him a few million, no one would have ever known about it, Safechuck wouldn't have come forward and money making train would have rolled unimpeded.

Sticking with the stench theme, that does not pass the smell test for me.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 12:22pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Wait, so if you believe these companies were set up then you must believe there was a recepient of their services. So what do you believe? It’s a bit unclear. I’m confused.

It's not my allegation, it's Robsons and Safechucks civil suit.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 12:27pm

Boggles wrote: »

Really? I think it overwhelmingly conclusive that they were criminals and grifters TBH.

Even taking the case in 2005, it was about as conclusive as you get. Jackson was completely exonerated, not just found "not guilty" IMO.

It's not just nitpicking though is it? It is a bit disingenuous to write it off such.

There is certainly credibility issues there and now that has extended to the director and one thing that always raises a red flag, massive potential financial gain.

What you are saying is you believe them despite the credibility issues, that is different. That is up to.

Many like myself are unconvinced. Now that doesn't makes ardent fanboys like you keep repeating, just skeptical given the actual evidence we know of.

Personally I don't know if Jackson molested kids or not or if he was just a creepy man trying to fix his banjaxed child hood.

But gun to head right now, I would think this particular allegation started as a con job that just snow balled.

The one question that no one seems to be able to answer is, Robson sealed his initial suit, if the "paedo rings" had just thrown him a few million, no one would have every known about it, Safechuck wouldn't have come forward and money making train would have rolled unimpeded.

Sticking with the stench theme, that does not pass the smell test for me.

That’s fine. You do you. But for something “overwhelmingly conclusive”, a hell of a lot of people weren’t convinced. I dunno, do you think you were in the majority in thinking MJ innocent? I would have thought it was at best 50/50 and I’m really being generous there.

I also don’t know why people are surprised the victims often seemed to be the children of people who were on the make. That seems like exactly the kind of kid a wealthy pedo would target.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 12:38pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s fine. You do you. But for something “overwhelmingly conclusive”, a hell of a lot of people weren’t convinced.

I'm not a hell of a lot of people though am I. I'm one person responsible solely for my own opinion.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I dunno, do you think you were in the majority in thinking MJ innocent? I would have thought it was at best 50/50 and I’m really being generous there.

I have no idea nor do I think it matters.

But specific to the 2005 trial I imagine the jurors opinion would trump some random internet poll.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I also don’t know why people are surprised the victims often seemed to be the children of people who were on the make. That seems like exactly the kind of kid a wealthy pedo would target.

But there were also the type of people who would fabricate sexual abuse stories for money.

I mean you have Chandlers father admit on tape that he was going to extort Jackson out of millions before he even drugged his own son and forced a confession out of him, a guy who went on to try and murder his own child.

I'm struggling to accept people thinking that type of scumbag given what we know wouldn't have the ability to concoct a fake abuse story and use his child to do it.

Ursus Horribilis · 05-04-2019 12:40pm

I'm watching this all as an interested observer really. I never was a Michael Jackson fan as such. I still like quite a few of his songs but never enough of them to be bothered to buy an album. I still think he was a paedophile and that the persona he presented to the public was not the real him by any stretch of the imagination. If credible evidence to the contrary comes along, I'll be happy to reverse my opinion. So far I remain unconvinced. What intrigues me too is how worked up some of the fans get over this. All over a person most of them never met or knew personally.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 12:41pm

Boggles wrote: »

It's not my allegation, it's Robsons and Safechucks civil suit.

I know that. You missed my point. I didn’t say it was your allegation, I asked if you believed that allegation. You don’t seem to believe Robson and Safechuck generally. But unless I’m reading it wrong, you seem to believe them that these companies exist. If you believe they do exist then surely you’d believe there was a recipient of their services? I’m just asking you to clarify whether you believe the two men’s allegations about these companies existing. It’s not clear.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 12:43pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I know that. You missed my point. I didn’t say it was your allegation, I asked if you believed that allegation. You don’t seem to believe Robson and Safechuck generally. But unless I’m reading it wrong, you seem to believe them that these companies exist. If you believe they do exist then surely you’d believe there was a recipient of their services? I’m just asking you to clarify whether you believe the two men’s allegations about these companies existing.

No I don't believe Jackson had the most sophisticated pedophile ring the world as every known on his pay roll.

But let's say he did.

There is no statue of limitations in California to prosecute Paedo Rings, you can get life in prison.

But the credibility of that goes back to my other point, if people were facing possible life sentences, why didn't the Jackson estate just pay off Robson on the quiet, the way he wanted it. Again doesn't pass the smell test.

Do you believe it?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 12:51pm

Boggles wrote: »

No I don't believe Jackson had the most sophisticated pedophile ring the world as every known on his pay roll.

But let's say he did.

There is no statue of limitations in California to prosecute Paedo Rings, you can get life in prison.

But the credibility of that goes back to my other point, if people were facing possible life sentences, why didn't the Jackson estate just pay off Robson on the quiet, the way he wanted it. Again doesn't pass the smell test.

Do you believe it?

That an organisation could be set up to deliver victims to a pedophile? Absolutely, especially since the Jerry Sandusky case. And that case was also very instructive in how calculating pedophiles can be and that they are capable of arranging their lives in a way that brings them into close contact with children.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 12:57pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That an organisation could be set up to deliver victims to a pedophile? Absolutely, especially since the Jerry Sandusky case. And that case was also very instructive in how calculating pedophiles can be and that they are capable of arranging their lives in a way that brings them into close contact with children.

TBF I didn't ask you about Jerry Sandusky, I asked you like you asked specifically about his case. AFAIK that case wouldn't really be unique but it would be different to this one.

The allegation is they willingly participated and ran in full knowledge of what there were doing a sophisticated ring to attract little boys and deliver them to man to rape.

Do you believe that?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 1:16pm

Boggles wrote: »

TBF I didn't ask you about Jerry Sandusky, I asked you like you asked specifically about his case. AFAIK that case wouldn't really be unique but it would be different to this one.

The allegation is they willingly participated and ran in full knowledge of what there were doing a sophisticated ring to attract little boys and deliver them to man to rape.

Do you believe that?

I answered this in my last post but if you need me to reiterate, like I said, I very much believe that there are people out there willing to participate in what’s described in the bolded bit of your post. That’s not at all an outlandish notion to me. I mentioned Sandusky because it’s a case that I found very instructive of how pedophiles can operate. Do you think people can’t mention things that help them form their viewpoints unless you specifically ask them?

That’s... very rigid.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 1:31pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I answered this in my last post but if you need me to reiterate, like I said, I very much believe that there are people out there willing to participate in what’s described in the bolded bit of your post.

Well you didn't actually and you continue to talk about generalities and maybes, when I am clearly asking you a very specific question about a very specific allegation.

You asked me the same specific question and I had the good grace to answer that specific question.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s not at all an outlandish notion to me. I mentioned Sandusky because it’s a case that I found very instructive of how pedophiles can operate. Do you think people can’t mention things that help them form their viewpoints unless you specifically ask them? That’s... very rigid.

Sandusky operated alone, now he used other people much like Saville but that is not remotely similar to what is being alleged here.

What is being alleged and again to be clear. Is people knowingly ran a criminal sophisticated ring with the primary goal of delivering little boys to a man for rape.

Again, they knew exactly what they were doing, they got paid to do it.

Very simple.

Do you believe that very specific allegation specifically relating to the people working for those 2 companies named in the suit?

BorneTobyWilde · 05-04-2019 1:37pm

Gwynplaine wrote: »

That Joe Biden video is freaky. I must read into it another bit.
Hiding in plain sight.

The way the kids seems to know what's coming is the freakiest thing, he would know all those families before these public events and maybe has had multiple interaction with the family and kids, the kids FOR SURE know his routine and are already freaked out by him, they know to pull away when he attempts to kiss them or touch them.
It's weird for sure and TOTALLY inappropriate to be trying to land kisses on kids and trying to grab them around chest. I mean WTF. I've never seen tape or pictures of Jackson doing such things.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 1:56pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well you didn't actually and you continue to talk about generalities and maybes, when I am clearly asking you a very specific question about a very specific allegation.

You asked me the same specific question and I had the good grace to answer that specific question.

Sandusky operated alone, now he used other people much like Saville but that is not remotely similar to what is being alleged here.

What is being alleged and again to be clear. Is people knowingly ran a criminal sophisticated ring with the primary goal of delivering little boys to a man for rape.

Again, they knew exactly what they were doing, they got paid to do it.

Very simple.

Do you believe that very specific allegation specifically relating to the people working for those 2 companies named in the suit?

No, I answered. I was not ambiguous. Have the grace to admit that. Maybe you didn’t get the response you wanted. I don’t know. But I answered.

Boggles · 05-04-2019 1:58pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

No, I answered. I was not ambiguous. Have the grace to admit that.

Well I missed that.

So No you don't believe the allegations against these specific 2 companies?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 05-04-2019 2:08pm

Boggles wrote: »

Well I missed that.

So No you don't believe the allegations against these specific 2 companies?

By... not reading my replies?

Okay, we’re in WUM territory here, I’ve realised. Well, our full exchange is there for others to read and I’m happy with my responses. I don’t know what else to tell you. But feel free to ask me a question for a fifth time that I’ve answered twice. Take the last word because repetitious back-and-forths are very boring for other forum members to read.

hetuzozaho · 05-04-2019 2:19pm

Boggles wrote: »

I'm one person responsible solely for my own opinion.

Would you agree its horrific he slept with those kids alone? The one thing we all agree is fact.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments