Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[TragicMonkey]

Snopes says otherwise.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jordan-chandler-jackson/

Hmm. I thought it was more widely reported and better sourced. That does remove one of the stronger points in favor of Jackson's innocence.

 

[Darat]

I don't know. You were asking what kinds of evidence might change MY mind, not what else might be used to convict someone.

I was just curious as whilst I've followed quite a few cases of historical abuse in institutions and so on and those that have resulted in successful prosecutions didn't have that type of evidence, I wondered if that was the usual standard for individuals being successfully prosecuted.

 

[Elagabalus]

...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...?

Jimmy Safechuck does indeed have a box of jewelry that MJ gave to him. You see them in the documentary.

From the subtitle track of "Leaving Neverland"

We would go buy them...at jewellery stores. And we would pretend like they were for somebody else and..like for a female, but...we would pretend like my small hand fit whatever female we were buying it for. Yeah, I don't...I don't like looking at the jewellery...

 

[DragonLady]

Jimmy Safechuck does indeed have a box of jewelry that MJ gave to him. You see them in the documentary.

From the subtitle track of "Leaving Neverland"

Okay; I have to admit that is some compelling evidence, if it's true.

But..... Maybe it came from MJ, maybe it fell from Bigfoot's belly button.

So I'd like to know more about it.

What jewelry stores? Are there any gemology reports? Any sales receipts? Anything that ties those items to Jackson, and any corroboration they were "gifts" from him (not stolen or purchased at an auction or regifted from someone else)? Does anyone remember seeing the two of them at a jewelry store together?

If he hates it so much, why didn't he auction it with the rest of his collection of Jackson memorabilia?

I'm not claiming I find it convincing. But it's a bigger step in that direction.

 

[DragonLady]

Another question about the jewelry:

I've run across a few claims that MJ was always giving stuff like that away. Is that true? Are these items typical of the kinds of items MJ gave away? And/or are they the type of "swag" that is purchased in bulk and given away at celebrations and events?

 

[DragonLady]

Hmm. I thought it was more widely reported and better sourced. That does remove one of the stronger points in favor of Jackson's innocence.

Was this the original source of that?

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/tom-mesereau-had-witnesses-that-jordan-lied/

 

[Sideroxylon]

Hmm. I thought it was more widely reported and better sourced. That does remove one of the stronger points in favor of Jackson's innocence.

Took a leap of faith? Chose to believe something you read somewhere?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Was this the original source of that?

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/tom-mesereau-had-witnesses-that-jordan-lied/

I doubt it, I read regular news sites at the time.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm saying, quite clearly, that the jury had access to more evidence than you and they considered it unsufficient to convict.

And if I were saying that I possessed the level of certainty to convict, I would need to explain why I differed from those jurors. But I'm not saying that, so I may well be in perfect agreement with the jurors.

A few important points though. That trial was not a referendum on whether Jackson sexually abused boys in general. It was a question of whether evidence existed beyond a reasonable doubt that he abused particular boys in a particular time frame.

These new accusations were not a part of the trial, so there is no relationship between the jurors findings then and these accusations.

And as to what evidence is available now that was not then to the question of whether Jackson in general sexually abused children, these new testimonies are new evidence that past juries have not had.

I find the counterargument that these new accusers are cashing in to be weak, since they were not paid for their participation and I have not seen many examples of people successfully cashing in on the fame of being a sexual abuse victim despite the popularity of the accusation.

This is all not to say that I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a child molester, but I don't find his defence sufficiently compelling to dismiss the accusations.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Took a leap of faith? Chose to believe something you read somewhere?

I can see you're dying for a gotcha but it's not really one. You could say the same about anything anyone ever reads, ever. Including all reports of Michael Jackson's activities. Or indeed, his existence. Did you ever meet him? Perhaps he was entirely fictional, and you just put faith in what you read about him.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I can see you're dying for a gotcha but it's not really one. You could say the same about anything anyone ever reads, ever. Including all reports of Michael Jackson's activities. Or indeed, his existence. Did you ever meet him? Perhaps he was entirely fictional, and you just put faith in what you read about him.

Not a gotcha, merely illustrative of what I said we all do. And whats more you here now appear arguing it too. As individuals we do not and cannot consistently practice the idealised scientific skepticism that this forum was founded on.* We have achieved this as a group project in some of the best threads here through the inputs and dialectic between a number of people bringing their various expertise and sources.

Here I am really just interested in picking at the ****** cynical and slanderous painting of Jackson’s accusors.

* Accross all of the positions of belief that we take, spanning various fields of expertise and some necessarily outside of our own.

 

[DragonLady]

I find the counterargument that these new accusers are cashing in to be weak, since they were not paid for their participation and I have not seen many examples of people successfully cashing in on the fame of being a sexual abuse victim despite the popularity of the accusation.

I believe one or both still has ongoing litigation against the estate.
At least one has written a book.
One has started some kind of non-profit gig and is taking donations.
I suspect they will both benefit professionally for the new "household name" status.
I also believe they will be able to sell their story again and again -and maybe even start lecture tours.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I believe one or both still has ongoing litigation against the estate.
At least one has written a book.
One has started some kind of non-profit gig and is taking donations.
I suspect they will both benefit professionally for the new "household name" status.
I also believe they will be able to sell their story again and again -and maybe even start lecture tours.

You believe and here make bald assertions based on nothing but cynicism. Benefit from the fame of telling their story of abuse? *severe eyeroll*

 

[DragonLady]

You believe and here make bald assertions based on nothing but cynicism. Benefit from the fame of telling their story of abuse? *severe eyeroll*

You're right. I am cynical. But, now be honest- did you even know either of these names back in January?

 

[DragonLady]

I want to pop in here to repeat one point before I leave for a while:

I have utmost sympathy for anyone who is a genuine victim of child abuse, and I do believe victims are entitled to whatever recompense the law allows.

 

[Matthew Best]

What jewelry stores? Are there any gemology reports? Any sales receipts? Anything that ties those items to Jackson, and any corroboration they were "gifts" from him (not stolen or purchased at an auction or regifted from someone else)? Does anyone remember seeing the two of them at a jewelry store together?

https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/13/michael-jackson-james-safechuck-jewelry-story-footage/

 

[DragonLady]

https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/13/michael-jackson-james-safechuck-jewelry-story-footage/

Wow!

Thanks; I'll take a look at it in more depth later.

 

[Cavemonster]

To address these individually:

I believe one or both still has ongoing litigation against the estate.

I don't see it as likely that a documentary would have much of an effect on litigation.

At least one has written a book.

This one I didn't know before. While it does make it more possible that person could profit from this, it doesn't make it more likely the accusation is untrue.

One has started some kind of non-profit gig and is taking donations.

All non-profits take donations, those don't flow to people who work for them unless the non-profit is crooked. If you've heard a reason to believe this non-profit is crooked I'd like to hear it.

I suspect they will both benefit professionally for the new "household name" status.
I also believe they will be able to sell their story again and again -and maybe even start lecture tours.

These things you might suspect of anyone who makes an accusation. They're not really evidence of anything. I'm also a bit dubious that these two will actually become household names in any substantial sense, or that it will benefit them professionally.

"We need to hire that guy! A famous singer from the 80s molested him. That's the kind of energy we want around out company" is probably not a commonly spoken phrase.

 

[Checkmite]

(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.

No - stop this. There is no justification for this equivocation. Jackson stood for photos with kids of all kinds, but it is not contested that he singled out specifically preteen boys for special attention, private time, and sleepovers.

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.

The image isn't based on his owning these books. It's the fact that he owned these books when in combination with his other inclinations toward young boys. And nor is it likely that his owning the books is an accident; as I've already mentioned previously, the latest allegation (which is corroborated by physical evidence - a copy of one of the books, with an inscription by Jackson, given to a boy he singled out for a close relationship) makes it clear that at least that book held special significance for Jackson, it wasn't just some book among many he had. Nor has it been offered into evidence at any point that Jackson actually had a larger "collection of strange art books" that these examples just happened to belong to, or in fact owned any art-photography books whatsoever aside from these two with the naked boys in them, excepting his pornography. Something can't be "taken out of" a context that doesn't exist.

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

Yes, it is. It starts in every case with the boy coming to Jackson's attention, whereby Jackson first starts to get friendly and close with the family, and then inevitably proceeds to Jackson insisting on private time alone with only the boy. Even when Jackson invited the whole family on tours or to his ranch, it always eventually became the case that the family was lodged some distance away - further and further down the hall, or in a completely separate wing of the house, or even a separate building altogether - while Jackson brought the boy into his own bedroom or hotel room.

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).

He gave families tours of his whole house, yes; but the special bedroom parties and invitation sleepovers were exclusively for young boys. This has been not only alleged by the accusers and their families, and former Neverland staff, but was noticed even by business associates who spent time with Jackson:

Myung-Ho Lee, who traveled the world with Jackson, observed his behavior at first hand. “He had a number of guests in his suite for the night—they were always boys in the 10- to 13-year-old range.” Lee adds, “I’ve never seen him share a suite with an older teen boy, a girl, or an older female. I thought it very strange.”

And by other musicians who worked with him as well. Who will be the first to accuse Paul Anka of making his claim just because "he wants to cash in"?

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.

That any particular boy knew about the alarm system or not is irrelevant; Jackson's defense team conceded its existence during the trial. But several accusers said they had been in Jackson's bed, not just one. Even boys who insisted Jackson hadn't actually molested them, like Culkin for instance, and the newest accuser, conceded that they had slept with Jackson in his bed.

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.

This is a very common complaint by some about the entire "MeToo" situation, it has to be said.

 

[Darat]

Jimmy Safechuck does indeed have a box of jewelry that MJ gave to him. You see them in the documentary.

From the subtitle track of "Leaving Neverland"

I found that very strange, I don't know how he could keep them given his allegations. I certainly wouldn't want such reminders of my abuser.