Micky Jackson in trouble again

Jerichoholic · 13-03-2019 1:17am

Those Jackson fans are cult-like brainwashed, they'll never believe it.

fryup · 13-03-2019 1:22am

^^^^^^^^^^^

i'm not a MJ fan, i never cared much for his music

but its as plain as day those guys are lying

sabat · 13-03-2019 1:28am

Even putting aside the dubious nature of the pornography and erotica found at his home, it does demonstrate that he wasn't the asexual creature that exists in his fans' heads.

Jean Baudrillard writes about his public persona in 1990's The Transparency of Evil:

"La Cicciolina, as carnal ectoplasm, is here very close to Madonna's artificial nitroglycerine or to Michael Jackson's androgynous and Frankensteinian appeal. All of them are mutants, transvestites, genetically baroque beings whose erotic look conceals their generic lack of specificity. They are all 'gender-benders' - all turncoats of sex.
Consider Michael Jackson for example. Michael Jackson is a solitary mutant, a precursor of a hybridization that is perfect because it is universal - the race to end all races. Today's young people have no problem with a miscegenated society: they already inhabit such a universe, and Michael Jackson foreshadows what they see as an ideal future. Add to this the fact that Michael has had his face lifted, his hair straightened, his skin lightened-in short he has been reconstructed with the greatest attention to detail. This is what makes him such an innocent and pure child - the artificial hermaphrodite of the fable, better able even than Christ to reign over the world and reconcile its contradictions; better than a child-god because he is child-prosthesis, an embryo of all those dreamt-of mutations that will deliver us from race and from sex. "

Jerichoholic · 13-03-2019 1:32am

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^

i'm not a MJ fan, i never cared much for his music

but its as plain as day those guys are lying

I liked him when I was younger but I have no doubt at all those two unfortunates were telling the truth.

SoundsRight · 13-03-2019 8:10am

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^

nobody wants to see abusers getting away with it

but equally we don't want someone who is innocent to be defamed ..and esp when they're not around anymore to defend themselves

Even when he was he he didn't defend himself. Paid off two accusers. That's just two that we know of. Have to wonder where all his money went.

Hannibal_Smith · 13-03-2019 8:20am

SoundsRight wrote: »

Even when he was he he didn't defend himself. Paid off two accusers. That's just two that we know of. Have to wonder where all his money went.

He defended himself in court?

He settled one case.

valoren · 13-03-2019 9:47am

From 2005.

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

"Thought you were dying in two weeks...what happened to that, mutha****a? I been in court for a year and a half and you get stronger every time I see you!" :pac:

Boggles · 13-03-2019 10:42am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Appearing on Oprah and telling your story in a documentary are 100% less traumatic than going through a criminal trial.

So 0%, not traumatic at all. That's not what Safechuck and Robson have said or how they have acted.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Of course they would have to be cross-examined, and that is only fair, but I strongly believe that in particularly in cases of sexual assault and child abuse that there should be rules/ systems in place to protect alleged victims from overly adversarial defence attorneys.

There is.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

This is an aside from the MJ case but things like what happened in Cork recently where an alleged victim's underwear were held up in court as 'proof' she was up for it just should not be allowed, and it's a disgrace that the judge let it happen.

There is very little known about the case, one small article with no context. On the face of it, it would seem crass but context is always key.

What was unusual or rare about that case was their was actually an eye witness.

I very much doubt a jury acquitted on one piece of evidence. What was alleged was a extremely brutal physical assault and horrendous rape.

But that's another thread and moot to this.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Aside from the cross examination, the media circus would make their lives unbearable. As it is they are getting death threats.

They seem to be doing all right riding the elephant around that circus TBF.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 10:47am

Boggles wrote: »

There is.

I believe that the current protections in place for victims are inadequate (in Ireland, I don't know enough about the US to comment). I think we could do a much better job in cases of rape at balancing the accused's right to a fair trial with the alleged victim's right to seek justice. I think currently the former supersedes the latter, and we need to have a justice system that works for both.

You may think we already have that, I don't.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 11:06am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I believe that the current protections in place for victims are inadequate (in Ireland, I don't know enough about the US to comment). I think we could do a much better job in cases of rape at balancing the accused's right to a fair trial with the alleged victim's right to seek justice. I think currently the former supersedes the latter, and we need to have a justice system that works for both.

You may think we already have that, I don't.

Absolutely, I think criminal justice and how it operates should constantly be up for review.

Balance the rights of both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, justice for me has always been about fairness.

It's exactly why I would never form an opinion on an unashamedly biased 4 hour "documentary" which prides itself on not offering even one solitary counter point.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 11:18am

Boggles wrote: »

It's exactly why I would never form an opinion on an unashamedly biased 4 hour "documentary" which prides itself on not offering even one solitary counter point.

Ah but this has come up time and again on this thread - no one is making their minds up based on the documentary alone. I'm certainly not.

Several times through reading this thread I've asked myself "What if I'm wrong?" - I could be. But I also keep asking myself "How would I feel about this if he wasn't a pop star?" and I would think he was a child molester.

Not based on anything any of the accusers have said to be honest, based on his own behaviour.

8-10 · 13-03-2019 11:18am

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^

i'm not a MJ fan, i never cared much for his music

but its as plain as day those guys are lying

Yep. People don't realise that nobody's arguing that his behaviour wasn't inappropriate and misguided, and could possibly have meant he abused somebody.

But you can have that view and still believe that Chandler, Arviso, Safechuck and Robson are lying.

And if they are lying, which I believe they are, then that is very wrong and if there are any real victims it is incredibly unfair on them

Boggles · 13-03-2019 11:23am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

But I also keep asking myself "How would I feel about this if he wasn't a pop star?" and I would think he was a child molester.

But that's an alternative reality and you can't base a proper assumption on that.

The fact is he was pop star, he was the main bread winner for his entire family when was 10 years old.

That has to be thrown in and weighed up with everything else.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 11:33am

Boggles wrote: »

But that's an alternative reality and you can't base a proper assumption on that.

The fact is he was pop star, he was the main bread winner for his entire family when was 10 years old.

That has to be thrown in and weighed up with everything else.

Sure, and his childhood most likely did impact his behaviour as an adult.

But we know this about Michael Jackson:
- He chose to have unsupervised sleepovers with male children and young male teens. Huge red flag.
- He adopted the mannerisms of a child even when he was a fully grown adult. Red flag.
- Imagery of naked children was found at his home. Humongous red flag.

So to me, it's not really about the documentary or what any of the accusers have said, it's about what his own behaviour tells us. And it points to an unhealthy sexual relationship with children.

People are constantly questioning the accuser's credibility. To my mind, Jackson's credibility is very much in doubt.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 11:34am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Ah but this has come up time and again on this thread - no one is making their minds up based on the documentary alone. I'm certainly not.

At least 1 person did on this thread. They thought he was definitely guilty. But then they did a bit research and changed their mind.

The problem is not everyone will take time to check out counter balance.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 11:40am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

People are constantly questioning the accuser's credibility. To my mind, Jackson's credibility is very much in doubt.

This is it for me. I question Jacksons credibility.
The bit that niggles at me the most is the alarm outside his bedroom. Confirmed by Culkin.

I came to this with lots of bias in my head over the years about Jackson and presumed a lot of what I'd heard was rubbish and some reading up would out a lot of it to bed. Sleeping alone with children being the biggest one. But most of the stuff I have an issue with seems to be accepted by the Jackson side.

In my opinion what is agreed by everyone is a form of child abuse anyway. Before we even get to the sexual stuff.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 11:41am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So to me, it's not really about the documentary or what any of the accusers have said, it's about what his own behaviour tells us. And it points to an unhealthy sexual relationship with children.
.

It certainly points to an unhealthy relationship with children based on society norms, but that does not mean he raped anyone.

The narrative is there is no logical explanation for him spending time with children other then he was abusing them, but we know there is based on several testimonies from people who did spend time with him, the most glowing of all being Robson.

But again it comes back to Justice and fairness, you can't convict someone because they are "weird".

You have to look at the people that have came forward and made accusations and test the credibility, and the reality is there is enough real flags between them all that would turn a bull cross eyed.

fryup · 13-03-2019 11:43am

Boggles wrote: »

At least 1 person did on this thread. They thought he was definitely guilty. But then they did a bit research and changed their mind.

The problem is not everyone will take time to check out counter balance.

yep, that was me.........this day last week after watching part 1 i was in the MJ guilty camp,

but after watching part 2..i felt that something was up with these guys..and online research has confirmed my suspicions

SoundsRight · 13-03-2019 11:43am

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

He defended himself in court?

He settled one case.

Didn't he pay $2m to a former maid who accused him of molesting her son?

I'd say he thought he could keep making these settlements ad infinitum. Then by the time of the Arviso case he was staring at bankruptcy; his hand was forced.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 11:45am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

This is it for me. I question Jacksons credibility.
The bit that niggles at me the most is the alarm outside his bedroom. Confirmed by Culkin.

Not just outside his room. The whole hall was rigged with motion detected sound alarms and he had porn and child porn in his room. And children.

They are facts.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 11:46am

Boggles wrote: »

It certainly points to an unhealthy relationship with children based on society norms, but that does not mean he raped anyone.

No, it doesn't.

The truth is neither you not I will ever know for sure whether he did or not.

We can only look at what's in the public domain and make up our minds as to what we think happened. You and I obviously disagree, but you can't know for sure any more than I do.

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the certainty some of the Jackson defenders seem to have.

Potential-Monke · 13-03-2019 11:50am

I have an acquaintance on bookface, from my Garda days. He shared a picture of MJ holding a child, kissing it on the forehead. It was accompanied by a paragraph about his good deeds, saving a child's life by finding a kidney, paying for the follow up ops, jumped in front of a car, gave all the money from Man in the Mirror to some charity, blah blah. When I called him out and asked 'I thought we're not supposed to protect paedos?', he wanted proof. This is a Garda. He claims that there is no solid proof. I'm actually sickened at him. Even if there is no 100% proof that he raped a child, he was sleeping in the same bed as them, and that is more than enough for me to label him as a paedo. I couldn't care less what excuses people will make for that, it's not right.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 11:51am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the certainty some of the Jackson defenders seem to have.

Its his staff and associates who are the guilty ones now, if the abuse happened. Allegedly an open secret in Jacko circles and they they're all quiet about it.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Even if there is no 100% proof that he raped a child, he was sleeping in the same bed as them, and that is more than enough for me to label him as a paedo. I couldn't care less what excuses people will make for that, it's not right.

People say "oh he never had a childhood".

Err, so why does that make sleeping in a bed with children ok? I had a childhood but I never had the urge to sleep in the same bed with other young boys.

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 11:52am

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I would be ashamed to get on that bus.

Who actually notices ads on the sides of buses before they get on one?

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 11:53am

The Nal wrote: »

Not just outside his room. The whole hall was rigged with motion detected sound alarms and he had porn and child porn in his room. And children.

They are facts.

From reading what was found in the room, I don't think any was classed as child pornography?

One was described as partially undressed children and when I looked it up it was a photo book about some wrestler / wrestling team. I haven't looked through them all but the ones I did were available on amazon.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 11:53am

The Nal wrote: »

Its his staff and associates who are the guilty ones now, if the abuse happened. Allegedly an open secret in Jacko circles and they they're all quiet about it.

Well, at this point, it would be difficult to admit you knew it was happening/ collaborated without opening yourself up to prosecution. Plus, many of them are still making money off their connections to Jackson. So really anyone who did witness abuse has very little to gain and a lot to lose from speaking out.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 11:54am

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the certainty some of the Jackson defenders seem to have.

Maybe it would help you greatly if you stopped labeling people "Jackson Defenders" because they have the audacity to have a differing opinion than you.

I try and never base my opinion on emotion.

But I can see why certain people might, it is an emotive issue.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 11:55am

hetuzozaho wrote: »

From reading what was found in the room, I don't think any was classed as child pornography?

One was described as partially undressed children and when I looked it up it was a photo book about some wrestler / wrestling team. I haven't looked through them all but the ones I did were available on amazon.

Been posted a few times in the threasd but its a busy thread, here it is again.

A List of Every Item Discovered by Police In Michael Jackson’s Residence by the police

Evidence Item #509. Book with pictures of nude children.

Evidence Item #510. Disneyland plastic bag containing underclothes and bloodied bed linens

Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Evidence Item #303. Three books containing nude photographs, including those of teenagers and pre-teenagers.

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls, some nude.

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

Etc etc

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 11:56am

sabat wrote: »

Even putting aside the dubious nature of the pornography and erotica found at his home, it does demonstrate that he wasn't the asexual creature that exists in his fans' heads.

Jean Baudrillard writes about his public persona in 1990's The Transparency of Evil:

"La Cicciolina, as carnal ectoplasm, is here very close to Madonna's artificial nitroglycerine or to Michael Jackson's androgynous and Frankensteinian appeal. All of them are mutants, transvestites, genetically baroque beings whose erotic look conceals their generic lack of specificity. They are all 'gender-benders' - all turncoats of sex.
Consider Michael Jackson for example. Michael Jackson is a solitary mutant, a precursor of a hybridization that is perfect because it is universal - the race to end all races. Today's young people have no problem with a miscegenated society: they already inhabit such a universe, and Michael Jackson foreshadows what they see as an ideal future. Add to this the fact that Michael has had his face lifted, his hair straightened, his skin lightened-in short he has been reconstructed with the greatest attention to detail. This is what makes him such an innocent and pure child - the artificial hermaphrodite of the fable, better able even than Christ to reign over the world and reconcile its contradictions; better than a child-god because he is child-prosthesis, an embryo of all those dreamt-of mutations that will deliver us from race and from sex. "

Well on a weird thread that's the weirdest thing by far. Shocking writing too!

Boggles · 13-03-2019 11:56am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This is a Garda. He claims that there is no solid proof. I'm actually sickened at him. Even if there is no 100% proof

A Garda looking for proof???

Well I never, he should resign immediately. :mad:

Potential-Monke · 13-03-2019 11:58am

Boggles wrote: »

A Garda looking for proof???

Well I never, he should resign immediately. :mad:

No, a Garda vehemently defending him.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:01pm

The Nal wrote: »

Been posted a few times in the threasd but its a busy thread, here it is again.

A List of Every Item Discovered by Police In Michael Jackson’s Residence by the police

Evidence Item #509. Book with pictures of nude children.

Evidence Item #510. Disneyland plastic bag containing underclothes and bloodied bed linens

Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Evidence Item #303. Three books containing nude photographs, including those of teenagers and pre-teenagers.

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls, some nude.

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

Etc etc

Sorry you misunderstood. I seen the list and looked up the ones I could. And they turned out to be books available on amazon, which I presume are not child pornography or amazon would be in a spot of bother.

Is there other books that were confirmed and is it that you couldn't be charged with possession of child pornography back then? Or what am I missing here? Why wasn't he charged with possession of child pornography?

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 12:01pm

The Nal wrote: »

Been posted a few times in the threasd but its a busy thread, here it is again.

A List of Every Item Discovered by Police In Michael Jackson’s Residence by the police

Evidence Item #509. Book with pictures of nude children.

Evidence Item #510. Disneyland plastic bag containing underclothes and bloodied bed linens

Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Evidence Item #303. Three books containing nude photographs, including those of teenagers and pre-teenagers.

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls, some nude.

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

Etc etc

Item 509 is a well-known and well-regarded book called Cronos. It has people of all ages into it

Boggles · 13-03-2019 12:03pm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

No, a Garda vehemently defending him.

Well, that's not what you said.

You said he asked for proof you replied he sleeps in the same bed as children he is a paedo.

Case closed.

Bizarre that some interaction from Facebook between a couple of strangers years ago is being thrown into the thread as some sort of evidence.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 12:03pm

Boggles wrote: »

Maybe it would help you greatly if you stopped labeling people "Jackson Defenders" because they have the audacity to have a differing opinion than you.

I try and never base my opinion on emotion.

But I can see why certain people might, it is an emotive issue.

Uhm, sorry, if I rephrase to "people defending Jackson" would that offend you less? That's what you're doing, like?

I've outlined the facts that led me to my conclusions.

We know that Michael had a very strange relationship with boys when he was a grown man. We know he was very generous to them. We know he changed their lives with amazing opportunities. We know he slept in the same bed as them. We know he was tactile with them. We know he spoke in a child's mannerisms. We know he didn't have a normal childhood himself. We know he had pictures of semi-nude children at his home.

Not emotion, fact.

Ursus Horribilis · 13-03-2019 12:04pm

You pick Cronos out of all of that list? What about all the other things?

The Nal · 13-03-2019 12:07pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Sorry you misunderstood. I seen the list and looked up the ones I could. And they turned out to be books available on amazon, which I presume are not child pornography or amazon would be in a spot of bother.

Is there other books that were confirmed and is it that you couldn't be charged with possession of child pornography back then? Or what am I missing here? Why wasn't he charged with possession of child pornography?

I don't think any of it was classed as child pornography. A lot of it was "art" books, nudist mags, science books etc. And a ****load of hardcore porn obviously. All legal. Some of which had Gavin Arvizos fingerprints on it.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 12:08pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

We know he had pictures of semi-nude children at his home.

He had books, the same books are stocked in the National Library of America, Amazon and various other online retailers.

Jackson had over a million books. He had in fact a library.

His "pornographic tastes" were consistent with a heterosexual male, all this was tested in court in what was comically referred to as "porn day".

The jurors interviews afterwards commentated that it actually helped Jackson.

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 12:09pm

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

You pick Cronos out of all of that list? What about all the other things?

I've no idea but he did have a lot of books.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:09pm

The Nal wrote: »

I don't think any of it was classed as child pornography. A lot of it was "art" books, nudist mags, science books etc. And a ****load of hardcore porn obviously. All legal. Some of which had Gavin Arvizos fingerprints on it.

Ah cool, just you had said he had child porn in his room.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 12:10pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I've no idea but he did have a lot of books.

But he kept his porn in the room where the kids slept....

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah cool, just you had said he had child porn in his room.

A technicality. Naked pics of kids is child porn imo. Just as non naturists browsing H&E Naturist from Easons top shelf, as I've done as a teenager, are looking at porn.

Ursus Horribilis · 13-03-2019 12:11pm

is_that_so wrote: »

I've no idea but he did have a lot of books.

He did. Care to read past Cronos and then come back with your thoughts?

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 12:12pm

The Nal wrote: »

But he kept his porn in the room where the kids slept....

He was a dubious individual.

Ursus Horribilis · 13-03-2019 12:13pm

Boggles wrote: »

His "pornographic tastes" were consistent with a heterosexual male, all this was tested in court in what was comically referred to as "porn day"..

So heterosexual males keep extensive collections of photos of scantily clad children and teens in their collections? I see.

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 12:14pm

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

He did. Care to read past Cronos and then come back with your thoughts?

I don't need to , it's been answered and explained above. Not sure why you feel my thoughts are so important on anything.

is_that_so · 13-03-2019 12:15pm

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

So heterosexual males keep extensive collections of photos of scantily clad children and teens in their collections? I see.

Why do you imagine any of us are experts on any of this?

Ursus Horribilis · 13-03-2019 12:15pm

The Nal wrote: »

But he kept his porn in the room where the kids slept....

A technicality. Naked pics of kids is child porn imo. Just as non naturists browsing H&E Naturist from Easons top shelf, as I've done as a teenager, are looking at porn.

These are the mental gymnastics Jackson's defenders undertake to prove their idol was pure as the driven snow.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 12:17pm

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

So heterosexual males keep extensive collections of photos of scantily clad children and teens in their collections? I see.

Extensive?

2 books out of a million.

Cool.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:18pm

The Nal wrote: »

A technicality. Naked pics of kids is child porn imo. Just as non naturists browsing H&E Naturist from Easons top shelf, as I've done as a teenager, are looking at porn.

That's a fair enough opinion, imo. And added to the rest of the facts it does raise some flags with me personally too.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 12:23pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

That's a fair enough opinion, imo. And added to the rest of the facts it does raise some flags with me personally too.

Yup. I don't know if he was a paedo or not. And I've been a fan since Thriller. I don't think it can ever been proven unless more come forward. The problem is that its America and theres money to be earned and lost from all of this. If you look at the families involved, they're all a bit weird. Evan Chandler for example was a total prick.

However if my life depended on answering yes or no, I would say yes, he was.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments