Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[DragonLady]

What evidence there is heavily suggests that Jackson was a pedophile who knowingly crossed many boundaries and engaged in textbook grooming behavior with his alleged victims.

Which evidence, specifically, convinces you?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well, the human in me says they might have just been star struck. I'm not, really, so I can't speak to how that might feel or cause one to behave, but can imagine it might lead to poor judgement.

The parent in me says it was because the kids begged to be allowed to stay, there were other people in the room, and pedophiles are pretty rare despite constantly being in the news.

The cynic in me says they saw the potential for a golden goose egg in the future.

Why do YOU think they did that?

The power differential between Michael Jackson, being the wealthy pop icon, lauded for his sublime talents, and the parents not being all of those things allowed parents to make rationalisations like “pedophiles are pretty rare” or dismissing what might in other circumstances be perceived as red flags as eccentric behaviour.

 

[Checkmite]

Which evidence, specifically, convinces you?

The combined weight of:

- His fixation on specifically young boys of a very particular age, contrasted with his comparatively lesser engagement with children who did not fit that profile

- The books he owned which contained artistic photographs of naked children, specifically of the same profile as the boys he was fixated on (and a complete lack of any reported similar material that happened to include similar photos of children outside the profile), which suggests his possession of those specific books with those specific photography subjects wasn't accidental.

- The fact that he had an gradually escalating "system" whereby the boys he specially selected were subjected by him to more closeness, more "alone time", and progressively more physical touching (even discounting the actual sexual molestation claims) over time, which seems to be a very common pattern of grooming for sexual abuse among pedophiles - earlier in the thread I specifically mentioned the uncanny parallels with Jerry Sandusky's escalating grooming system, as reported by Sandusky's victims

- The fact that he took unrelated children into his bedroom to sleep in his bed with him, alone, with no supervision by parents or other adults, and in fact an alarm system to warn Jackson when anyone was even coming down the hall toward the bedroom during these events

Any single one of these things might be easy to explain away hypothetically on its own, but the context created by all of them co-existing together makes the individual rationalizations seem silly and reaching. Just going from the information that isn't contested, Michael Jackson serially and systematically lavished upon and groomed young boys of a particular type using a methodology notably employed by other serial child molesters, up to and past the point where he had repeated and effectively on-demand private access to each target child.

By the way, quite recently another man who was one of Jackson's selected special friends has said that as a kid Jackson once gave him a copy of one of the aforementioned books with the naked-boy photos in it, with an inscription from Jackson telling him to "enjoy" and referring to him by a nickname that the man claims was a reference to the way Jackson used to basically dry-hump him when he slept in Jackson's bed. That makes six of Jackson's "special boys" so far who have claimed Jackson used his private time with them to engage in inappropriate sexual (or sexualized) behavior.

 

[Darat]

As a matter of your individual opinion, I'm fine with that. But in MJ's case, it's every mainstream news outlet jumping on every chance to report whatever lurid details they find, without presenting much -or even any- of the rebuttal evidence.



Good. Something we can agree on. The truth is important.

Dragon Lady what genuine evidence would it take to change your mind at this time?

 

[Information Analyst]

- The books he owned which contained artistic photographs of naked children, specifically of the same profile as the boys he was fixated on (and a complete lack of any reported similar material that happened to include similar photos of children outside the profile), which suggests his possession of those specific books with those specific photography subjects wasn't accidental.

Two books containing some photographs, amongst a large collection of books on photography and art. This seems to be only one step above claiming someone has "photographs of kids in their underwear," that turns out to be a mainstream mail order clothes catalogue....

 

[Belz...]

What if the Middle School Gym teacher down the street, who was demonstrably very far too intimate with his students and who would invite them into his home to play together, was accused of touching them sexually or otherwise sexually abusing them? They probably wouldn't let their kids play with him or hang out at his place even if he wasn't charged with a crime, or if he was acquitted, because of a lack of evidence.

"Wouldn't take the chance" is not the same as concluding he's guilty.

 

[Belz...]

First, I'm not sure how this relates to my point.

It relates to your point because it removes the certainty that comes with being a victim with the doubt that comes with being a detached observer. A juror, for instance.

But to answer your question, while "know" may be an overly strong word, I can find it highly likely that someone committed a crime they were acquitted for.

But how do you know more than the people who have seen all the evidence presented? That's the point.

 

[Belz...]

We do. Not one of us in this discussion has any privileged knowledge that could answer the question of his innocence or guilt with “certainty”.

True, and some of us are, therefore, not coming to a conclusion. I don't know why we have to pick a side, here.

ETA: And that's despite the stated fact that Jackson was a hell of a weird bird with, to put it mildly, troubling behaviour.

 

[qayak]

What if the Middle School Gym teacher down the street, who was demonstrably very far too intimate with his students and who would invite them into his home to play together, was accused of touching them sexually or otherwise sexually abusing them? They probably wouldn't let their kids play with him or hang out at his place even if he wasn't charged with a crime, or if he was acquitted, because of a lack of evidence.

That has always been extremely puzzling to me. Parents who are aware of the allegations against, and first payout of, Michael Jackson continue to send their children to him for sleepovers.

I have a longtime friend whose mother was molested by her father. He also molested her sisters, cousins and friends. When she grew up and had kids she sent the daughters over to her fathers house for sleep overs. Mind boggling enough but when her daughters reported being molested she insisted she didn't know he was like that even though she had been telling people for decades that he molested her. In the end, and the end came because of his death, police had nearly 200 charges against him and were still uncovering more.

 

[DragonLady]

Dragon Lady what genuine evidence would it take to change your mind at this time?

Any faxes/letters/notes from Jackson to any of these boys that say anything actually incriminating?

Any photos of these boys naked? Did any of these boys take any pictures of Jackson naked? I mean they "loved him" and that's a pretty typical thing to do.

I'm curious about the ring the one boy was given. Where did it come from? Did they choose it at a jewelry store? Is it inscribed? How was it sized? Does he have the box? Has any jeweler come forward and said "Hey...I made a ring like that...." Why is he the only one with a handful of trinkets?

I hear lots of strange tales -which get louder and more lurid and more graphic with every passing year, but I'm not seeing anything that can be called "proof" and neither did the jury.

 

[DragonLady]

(snip) I'll try to address some of these points later


By the way, quite recently another man who was one of Jackson's selected special friends has said that as a kid Jackson once gave him a copy of one of the aforementioned books with the naked-boy photos in it, with an inscription from Jackson telling him to "enjoy" and referring to him by a nickname that the man claims was a reference to the way Jackson used to basically dry-hump him when he slept in Jackson's bed. That makes six of Jackson's "special boys" so far who have claimed Jackson used his private time with them to engage in inappropriate sexual (or sexualized) behavior.

Thirteen-year-old cancer victim Gavin Arvizo, who Jackson stands accused of sexually molesting, told law enforcement authorities the pop star’s pet name for him was “Rubba.”
Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2003/11/21956/#kDeGckquocdzxqXk.99

From their nicknames for each other—Doo-doo Head, Apple Head, and Rubba—Jackson and Jordie Chandler appear to have had an extremely intimate relationship

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2004/03/michael-jackson-alleged-child-molestation-maureen-orth


Apparently a lot of boys were called "Rubba". Maybe it wasn't meant to mean what everyone is saying it meant?

 

[theprestige]

https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2004/03/michael-jackson-alleged-child-molestation-maureen-orth





Apparently a lot of boys were called "Rubba". Maybe it wasn't meant to mean what everyone is saying it meant?

If one bird looks like a duck, we probably have a duck,but if six birds look like ducks, we should consider whether we have flock of crows instead?

The thing you're pushing against here is called consilience of evidence.

 

[DragonLady]

as a kid Jackson once gave him a copy of one of the aforementioned books with the naked-boy photos in it

A quick search shows that book can be purchased all over the place. It seems to range from about $70. to over $300.

I'm almost certain it's on the list of items inventoried from the ranch during the raid.

Has this boy made any claims that he might not have simply lifted from the news articles?

 

[DragonLady]

If one bird looks like a duck, we probably have a duck,but if six birds look like ducks, we should consider whether we have flock of crows instead?

The thing you're pushing against here is called consilience of evidence.

Yeah; I get that.

But with each new "duck" it would seem you'd have a handful of people saying "look -ducks!" BEFORE they landed in the pond at the golf course.

I think the story seems more unbelievable with each extra set of parents who just went quietly along for the ride. More unbelievable with every perfectly overlapping tale.

I understand the idea the more the stories match, the more they must be true. But I'm just not sure I buy it. It seems too much like psychic cold reading to me -one guy reads about another guy's windfall, and tells the same story because it's worked once or twice before.

Are there any NEW details that can be corroborated or new evidence that can be examined?

 

[Arcade22]

On the other hand, it looks like people are taking some leaps of faith to declare he likely, or even certainly, did abuse children.

I'm not the one that's giving MJ an unreasonable benefit of the doubt in spite of his own admissions and his demonstrably extremely questionable and suspicious behavior. I wouldn't do that for my neighbor, who i barely know, and i wouldn't do it for MJ.

He acted and behaved like a classic textbook example of how a child grooming sexual predator acts. His attempts to defend his behavior come off as extremely unconvincing if not outright self-incriminating. Those are demonstrable facts that you seem intent on ignoring.

Because what evidence there is points the other way. A msssive, well-funded, well-run prosecution couldn't prove it. Yet some random people who know only what they've read know better than the jury who actually received all the evidence?

I make up my mind based on the evidence and facts. Would i, as a member of the jury at his trial, find him guilty based on the evidence presented there? I'm not sure i would, even if i was privy to all the facts that I now am.

That's because I'm detached and impartial enough to acknowledge that there's a difference between finding him legally guilty of a crime and deducing that he likely did sexually abuse young boys.

People were pretty damn certain Alfred Dreyfus was guilty. It seemed so obvious at the time, based on what they heard, based on what they believed "likely".

You are undermining your own case by showing that his acquittal doesn't matter: people who commit crimes escape responsibility all the time (most of them don't even end up in court) and sometimes people end up being punished for something they didn't do.

 

[Arcade22]

As a matter of your individual opinion, I'm fine with that. But in MJ's case, it's every mainstream news outlet jumping on every chance to report whatever lurid details they find, without presenting much -or even any- of the rebuttal evidence.

While that's regrettable, two wrongs don't make a right. He doesn't get a pass just because he was mistreated by sensationalist salacious rumormongers.

Good. Something we can agree on. The truth is important.

Well apparently some things are more important.

 

[DragonLady]

Well apparently some things are more important.

???

 

[DragonLady]

The combined weight of:

- His fixation on specifically young boys of a very particular age, contrasted with his comparatively lesser engagement with children who did not fit that profile

(nods) I admit that seems really damning. I'm just not so sure that was entirely true, or if there's been so much cherry-picking over the years that it simply seems true now.

A quick search for images of him turns up thousands of results, and he's often shown with large groups of kids of all types and sizes. But I can't speak to who he spent time with or for how long when the cameras weren't rolling.

- The books he owned which contained artistic photographs of naked children, specifically of the same profile as the boys he was fixated on (and a complete lack of any reported similar material that happened to include similar photos of children outside the profile), which suggests his possession of those specific books with those specific photography subjects wasn't accidental.

Utterly meaningless to me. As an amateur artist myself, I collect a huge number of very strange books and if someone wanted to build an image of me based on my library, they would decide I'm a very strange individual.

---- I would not be surprised if it's simply easier to find books with photos of naked boys than of naked girls of similar ages; but I'm not sure about that.

- The fact that he had an gradually escalating "system" whereby the boys he specially selected were subjected by him to more closeness, more "alone time", and progressively more physical touching (even discounting the actual sexual molestation claims) over time, which seems to be a very common pattern of grooming for sexual abuse among pedophiles - earlier in the thread I specifically mentioned the uncanny parallels with Jerry Sandusky's escalating grooming system, as reported by Sandusky's victims

But that's not always what the boys said happened.

- The fact that he took unrelated children into his bedroom to sleep in his bed with him, alone, with no supervision by parents or other adults, and in fact an alarm system to warn Jackson when anyone was even coming down the hall toward the bedroom during these events

Again, this doesn't really match what has been reported. Jackson often had whole families in his "bedroom" (which, remember, was two stories and the size of an apartment). The Arvizo boy claimed to have been in Jackson's bed, but did not know there was an alarm system that would've sounded when they walked up the stairs.

Also, the timeline of events for those allegations kept changing. You can read a bit about them and the problems with the timeline here: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/27/the-crucial-period-february-7-march-12-2003/

(There are very good reasons all these claims were decimated on cross-examination. They didn't hold water.)


--I apologize for linking to that site so often. Sadly, it's become really difficult to find other sources for this information as so many sites have either merged, are simply no longer there or are just buried in the search results.--

Any single one of these things might be easy to explain away hypothetically on its own, but the context created by all of them co-existing together makes the individual rationalizations seem silly and reaching. Just going from the information that isn't contested, Michael Jackson serially and systematically lavished upon and groomed young boys of a particular type using a methodology notably employed by other serial child molesters, up to and past the point where he had repeated and effectively on-demand private access to each target child.

I agree it seems that way. But, on closer examination, to me it seems the mainstream press just never wants to publish anything that contradicts this narrative, so everyone who looks becomes buried in the sheer amount of print - n - pixels. To me, "all that smoke" doesn't automatically mean there's a fire.

--- Somewhere along the line I also recall a video of someone claiming the press was flatly refusing to print anything pro-Jackson around the time of the Arvizo trial.---

 

[TragicMonkey]

It reminds me very much of the McDonalds hot coffee case. The first story was sensational, low on facts, and spun to elicit a powerful reaction. The second story was less exciting, contained more facts, and was found to be quite convincing to those who heard both versions. Unfortunately, the more sensational first version propagated faster and to this day remains the dominant narrative, despite being the weaker factually. Those who have only been exposed to the first version are committed to its complete truthfulness. The narrative of human stupidity, greed, and nanny statism is more exciting than a dryer one involving prior court findings, the math behind the payout determination, and corporate inertia. I suppose it's natural to find the sensational story more interesting, but that doesn't mean it's more likely to be true.

 

[Ziggurat]

As an amateur artist myself, I collect a huge number of very strange books and if someone wanted to build an image of me based on my library, they would decide I'm a very strange individual.

Maybe you are. NTTAWWT.