Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 2:59pm

Totally weirded out by anyone who forms any kind of defence for his behaviour, tbh.

seamus · 28-01-2019 3:00pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

Maybe I missed this but was it confirmed to be false? i don't remember hearing much about it following the settlement.

I was actually thinking of the second round of allegations. That was known to be false, the parents were petty criminals looking for a big payout.

The first set is a whole load of circumstantial stuff, that the boy involved is still reluctant to discuss it. The set up was shaky as fnck - the kid's father drugged him with barbituates and then allegedly obtained a confession from the kid that Jackson had abused him.
He called a friend and talked about taking on a case, how he'd be loaded and his wife would lose custody of his son.

Of course that doesn't mean it's not true - predators often seek out children who are in dire family circumstances - but it places big question marks over the whole thing.

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.

That was the above father who drugged his son to get a confession. A strange character who killed himself not long after Jackson died.

There was no report that the actual child who accused Jackson ever took such extreme measures, so again calls the father's account into question.

The two individuals covered in this documentary already tried to sue the Jackson estate and lost.

So it also has to be viewed in this lens - are they genuinely looking to "get the truth out there", or do they see a way to cash in?

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 3:07pm

Adamocovic wrote: »

Now there's an odd sentence :pac:

What has my life come to?

You're taking the mickey

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 3:09pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Totally weirded out by anyone who forms any kind of defence for his behaviour, tbh.

What behavior is that?

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 3:17pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What behavior is that?

Sorry what part of sleeping in a bed beside pre pubescent boys do you find normal?

Adamocovic · 28-01-2019 3:18pm

seamus wrote: »

There was no report that the actual child who accused Jackson ever took such extreme measures, so again calls the father's account into question.

The two individuals covered in this documentary already tried to sue the Jackson estate and lost.

So it also has to be viewed in this lens - are they genuinely looking to "get the truth out there", or do they see a way to cash in?

Apologies, I must have mixed the two up, it was the father who went to extremes with the facial surgery.

I still stand by my point however. Whether or not anything occured like you said is difficult to determine. Is it legitimate or solely cash driven. Who knows.
However my argument was if in fact it was true then I think there would be reasons victims would be afraid to talk out and don't agree with people saying he's dead now 10 years so no reason for them to remain silent.

So many victims I imagine stay silent their entire lives, nevermind ones to celebrities or people with power, fans and money.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 3:45pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Totally weirded out by anyone who forms any kind of defence for his behaviour, tbh.

Wade Robson’s mother completely defended it.

To the press, police and grand jury.

I think that is a little hint of the people you are dealing with here.

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 3:46pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Sorry what part of sleeping in a bed beside pre pubescent boys do you find normal?

There's plenty of odd things about this mans life. I was just wonder what things you were talking about

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 3:47pm

It's not healthy for a grown man to have such interest in other people’s children. Regardless if he did anything or not. Personally I have believed him to be guilty for years. Neverland is the extravagant equivalent of a man driving around estates with “free ice cream” written across his van. Most adults love children and love their company, but most adults will also tire of children’s company and its normal to have a very limited appetite for the company of a child. There is nothing normal at all whatsoever about a grown man seeking out young children (always boys too) for company, inviting them around to stay with you, booking out hotel rooms with them and staging mock weddings. Then couple that with the fact Jackson was most likely sexually abused by his own father which increases his likelihood of abusing others.
Would you let your little kid go play in your neighbours yard if he had it kitted out like a children’s fantasy wonderland? Would you let them sleep in a bed with him, because after all, the poor man is just trying to recapture the lost innocence of his youth, sure god love him.
Of course you would not, because it’s totally and utterly fcuking creepy. And shame on the parents who handed their children up on a plate to have god knows what done to them by a grown man. They’re not blameless in this either.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:09pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Personally I have believed him to be guilty for years.

All the allegations against him were motivated by money, including the 2 in the new documentary

Even his sister who claimed he was a pedophile admitted she did it for money.

Why do you believe he is guilty and for how many years?

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:25pm

Boggles wrote: »

Why do you believe he is guilty and for how many years?

Because of everything I’ve outlined above

as well as everything I’ve read and watched down throughout the years. I’m not trying to convince anyone or change anybody’s minds. I’m just stating my views. My mind will never be changed. I will never be convinced of anything other than the fact he was a creepy pervert with an unhealthy interest and appetite for young boys. You can think what you like.

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:28pm

Boggles wrote: »

All the allegations against him were motivated by money, including the 2 in the new documentary

Even his sister who claimed he was a pedophile admitted she did it for money.

Why do you believe he is guilty and for how many years?

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.....

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:31pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Exactly, looking at his 4 accusers:

Jordie Chandler - took $20m payout. If your child was molested would you accept money?

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

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:34pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Because of everything I’ve outlined above as well as everything I’ve read and watched down throughout the years. I’m not trying to convince anyone or change anybody’s minds. I’m just stating my views. My mind will never be changed. I will never be convinced of anything other than the fact he was a creepy pervert with an unhealthy interest and appetite for young boys. You can think what you like.

I form my opinion based on evidence as do most rational people.

Being "creepy" does not make a person a child rapist. What exactly have you read and watched throughout the years that would make you think he was guilty?

The allegations against him were made or helped be made by fair shady individuals just looking to profit from him. You do concede right?

Jackson did do some things that would be considered odd, but there are explanations for it and on the balance of probabilities I don't think he was the world most elaborate pedophile who built a play ranch with the sole intention of raping children.

Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means put it up.

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:35pm

retro:electro wrote: »

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

Because of exactly what's happened. Claims you know are false being made can still destroy a reputation.

He thought it would go away and he had the cash so why not.

When it happened again with Gavin Arvizo he refused to pay out as he knew it would keep happening and he put his faith into criminal justice system, at a massive cost to his health.

It's interesting that all 4 accusers have sued him for money, none of the cases do not involve money. Funny that...

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:38pm

Clearly the parents of the children in question did not have their children’s best interests at heart in the first place by letting them have sleepovers with a grown man who thought he was Peter Pan. So it surprises me not that they decided to accept $20mil in hush money to buy their silence.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:38pm

retro:electro wrote: »

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

He didn't offer hush money, his lawyers did. Apparently it came out of some insurance fund.

Jackson is on record as saying he wanted to take it to court.

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:38pm

Boggles wrote: »

I form my opinion based on evidence as do most rational people.

Being "creepy" does not make a person a child rapist. What exactly have you read and watched throughout the years that would make you think he was guilty?

The allegations against him were made or helped be made by fair shady individuals just looking to profit from him. You do concede right?

Jackson did do some things that would be considered odd, but there are explanations for it and on the balance of probabilities I don't think he was the world most elaborate pedophile who built a play ranch with the sole intention of raping children.

Unless of course you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means put it up.

There is no evidence.

Look at other high profile cases - Harvey Weinstein, Jimmy Saville. Once a few accusations were made a lot more came out, hundreds of victims - the floodgates opened up.

What happened with Michael Jackson? Nothing - no further victims, just the odd person trying to make money out of him, even when he's dead.

JP Liz V1 · 28-01-2019 5:39pm

Has Mac Culkin made any comment?

Theboinkmaster · 28-01-2019 5:40pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Has Mac Culkin made any comment?

No, why would he? He's already on record stating his position so nothing new to say.

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 5:42pm

retro:electro wrote: »

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

I don't know why he paid but you should try research the case online. You will be puzzled. Child said jacksons penis had different marks. Cops got kid to draw a picture of it. The Jewish boy drew a circumcised penis as most likely this is all he have know at this age. Jackson wasn't circumcised. Picture looked nothing like Jackson,s. The boys council didn't want the picture shown in court, not jacksons council.

It is a very interesting case. Nothing actually points to Jackson being guilty, yet he payed a huge payment. I can't tell you if he did it or not but the only thing that actually makes him look guilty is the payment. It looks like Jackson would have won the court case

Sleeper12 · 28-01-2019 5:45pm

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Has Mac Culkin made any comment?

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No, why would he? He's already on record stating his position so nothing new to say.

He repeated the same thing within the last few weeks. I wasn't sure why he'd come out with it again but now that I see this movie is out it explains why he defended Jackson again

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:45pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Clearly the parents of the children in question did not have their children’s best interests at heart in the first place

Well the father at least.

Drugged his child to get the "confession" out of him and some years later tried to kill him with a dumbbell.

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:45pm

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't offer hush money, his lawyers did. Apparently it came out of some insurance fund.

Jackson is on record as saying he wanted to take it to court.

Sorry what? Do you think lawyers can just offer up $20 mil of their client’s money without their client’s consent?

Ardent · 28-01-2019 5:47pm

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.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:48pm

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?

Lawyers are there to advise what is best for their client. There was no admission of guilt.

Jackson addressed it personally on TV, he wanted for it to go to court.

The case was solid, he probably would have won. But you never know I suppose.

Also the money apparently came from an insurance fund and wasn't 20 million.

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 28-01-2019 5:50pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM8EVIbNxk4
NSFW

retro:electro · 28-01-2019 5:52pm

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.

Boggles · 28-01-2019 5:58pm

retro:electro wrote: »

He would had to have agreed on the settlement.

If it came from an insurance company?

Nope.

SoundsRight · 28-01-2019 6:02pm

He's doing his moonwalk over burning coals down below as far as I'm concerned, with Jimmy Savile manning the turntables.

I'd be a bit suspicious of anyone who thought there was nothing sinister about a grown man having sleepovers with little kids.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments