Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[Checkmite]

Apparently a lot of boys were called "Rubba".

And hmm, what do they all just happen to have in common...?

Maybe it wasn't meant to mean what everyone is saying it meant?

Or maybe the people he actually gave that nickname to are really in the best position to know what it means.

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?

If you are suggesting the man bought the book himself and is lying that Michael Jackson gave it to him, the article contains a photograph of the inscription in the book by Jackson.

Interestingly, for someone who hypothetically is inventing a story of abuse against a dead person who would be wholly unable to refute anything he says, his story is rather light-weight. He says Jackson asked him to get naked, but that he refused, and ultimately Jackson never molested him, but only liked to rub up against him while wearing pajamas in his bed.

 

[Matthew Best]

Just in case anyone else is wondering, we're talking about Michael Jacobshagen here (I think).

https://mjandboys.wordpress.com/201...kson-of-molestation-2019-michael-jacobshagen/

 

[Checkmite]

Just in case anyone else is wondering, we're talking about Michael Jacobshagen here (I think).

https://mjandboys.wordpress.com/201...kson-of-molestation-2019-michael-jacobshagen/

... Jackson once gave Jacobshagen a copy of “The boy: a photographic essay”, a book which was made by convicted pedophiles...

Wow, first time I'm hearing that.

 

[theprestige]

Just in case anyone else is wondering, we're talking about Michael Jacobshagen here (I think).

https://mjandboys.wordpress.com/201...kson-of-molestation-2019-michael-jacobshagen/

But you're making him a household name! You're playing right into his cynical little scam! Leave Michael Jackson alone!

 

[Arcade22]

One of things that suggests that MJ was a pedophile is the fact the very close relationships he had with young boys seemed to cool as they aged. It was evidently almost exclusively, if not exclusively, young boys of a certain age he bonded closely with. He supposedly told the mother of one of the victims that their son was going to be a great Hollywood director when they grew up.

If their relationship was non-sexual, although clearly "inappropriate", you'd expect that he would continue to patronize and help him in his future endeavors. After all the reason he was having a young boy from as far away as Australia was ostensibly because he was helping him kickstart their career in showbis. Instead their relationship cooled over time as they aged and he ultimately lost interest in them completely. You'd imagine that their professional relationship would develop as they grew older and was able to dedicate more and more of their life towards their career.

 

[theprestige]

One of things that suggests that MJ was a pedophile is the fact the very close relationships he had with young boys seemed to cool as they aged. It was evidently almost exclusively, if not exclusively, young boys of a certain age he bonded closely with. He supposedly told the mother of one of the victims that their son was going to be a great Hollywood director when they grew up.

If their relationship was non-sexual, although clearly "inappropriate", you'd expect that he would continue to patronize and help him in his future endeavors. After all the reason he was having a young boy from as far away as Australia was ostensibly because he was helping him kickstart their career in showbis. Instead their relationship cooled over time as they aged and he ultimately lost interest in them completely. You'd imagine that their professional relationship would develop as they grew older and was able to dedicate more and more of their life towards their career.

Also, it's not the middle ages. Taking a preteen apprentice under your wing isn't really a career path anymore. A serious patron would be too busy judging the projects of high school film club presidents, to be wasting his time with literal children.

 

[Checkmite]

One of things that suggests that MJ was a pedophile is the fact the very close relationships he had with young boys seemed to cool as they aged. It was evidently almost exclusively, if not exclusively, young boys of a certain age he bonded closely with. He supposedly told the mother of one of the victims that their son was going to be a great Hollywood director when they grew up.

If their relationship was non-sexual, although clearly "inappropriate", you'd expect that he would continue to patronize and help him in his future endeavors. After all the reason he was having a young boy from as far away as Australia was ostensibly because he was helping him kickstart their career in showbis. Instead their relationship cooled over time as they aged and he ultimately lost interest in them completely. You'd imagine that their professional relationship would develop as they grew older and was able to dedicate more and more of their life towards their career.

This is a very valid point. When it is remarked by former staff and associates that Jackson "only hung out with young boys", to the exclusion of girls and older teen boys, the latter would definitely seem to include his own "special friends" once they aged beyond his interest. It certainly makes his stated reasons for the interest seem like a pretext.

It also seems somewhat interesting that Jackson appears to have fixated only on one particular "special friend" at a time. That is, with the exception of the two that were brothers of course, I don't recall any of the alleged victims ever saying they knew each other, or knew any other boys that Michael Jackson gave preference to while he was giving it to them. I don't recall mention of any other families staying as special guests at Neverland at the same time - anything of that sort. Either Jackson actually had only one favored boy at a time, or he took special measures to ensure that none of his retinue ever met each other.

But either way, it certainly seems like whatever Jackson got out of his relationships with them, it was something only boys of a certain age could give him, and once they got too old to give it anymore they were sent off and replaced.

 

[theprestige]

It also seems somewhat interesting that Jackson appears to have fixated only on one particular "special friend" at a time. That is, with the exception of the two that were brothers of course, I don't recall any of the alleged victims ever saying they knew each other, or knew any other boys that Michael Jackson gave preference to while he was giving it to them. I don't recall mention of any other families staying as special guests at Neverland at the same time - anything of that sort. Either Jackson actually had only one favored boy at a time, or he took special measures to ensure that none of his retinue ever met each other.

I suppose it's some sort of "expiration date" thing. He'd find a candidate, lay the groundwork, and reap the rewards. But it's not sustainable. After a few years, the victim ages out, and has to be replaced. Jackson was probably always mentally sifting through his fanbase, making notes to himself about likely candidates. Then, when it was time, he'd pull someone from that pool closer in.

 

[Shadowdweller]

duplicate

 

[Shadowdweller]

... Jackson once gave Jacobshagen a copy of “The boy: a photographic essay”, a book which was made by convicted pedophiles...

Wow, first time I'm hearing that.

Same here. Token initial searching* seems to suggest that it is true.

* (Drew, Ronald)

 

[theprestige]

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 too am an amateur artist that collects a lot of disturbing material, both art and pornography. If someone were to build an image of me from my library, they'd certainly decide I'm a very strange individual. But they wouldn't suspect I'm a pedophile, because somehow - coincidence? - there are no albums of naked children in my collection.

 

[Elagabalus]

Same here. Token initial searching* seems to suggest that it is true.

* (Drew, Ronald)

Indeed. You might want to put your browser on private browsing B4 clicking:

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/1981-nambla-britishpedigree/

ETA: This from the New Yorker about Jerry Sandusky seems cromulent:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/24/in-plain-view

And lastly:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47646838/...hile-priest-kept-detailed-diary/#.XIniRoUaNuV

Now, go take that shower!!

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

This seems to be one of those cases where stories only start to sound "similar" once one or more of them are in the public domain, prior to which different and/or contradictory accounts were being given.

There have been some cases of alleged systemic abuse in the UK where some alleged victims were found to be lying, based on the accounts of others. In one case, against a member of staff at a children's home (eventually acquitted), a former resident of the latter admitted to a cellmate in prison that nothing had happened to him, but he just wanted a slice of the compensation on offer.

 

[Belz...]

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.

But then, as critical thinkers should we not either suspend judgment or, pending evidence that pushes this beyond reasonable doubt, consider him not guilty?

Why use a lower standard of evidence here? Personal gratification? Closure?

 

[Belz...]

One of things that suggests that MJ was a pedophile is the fact the very close relationships he had with young boys seemed to cool as they aged. It was evidently almost exclusively, if not exclusively, young boys of a certain age he bonded closely with. He supposedly told the mother of one of the victims that their son was going to be a great Hollywood director when they grew up.

If their relationship was non-sexual, although clearly "inappropriate", you'd expect that he would continue to patronize and help him in his future endeavors. After all the reason he was having a young boy from as far away as Australia was ostensibly because he was helping him kickstart their career in showbis. Instead their relationship cooled over time as they aged and he ultimately lost interest in them completely. You'd imagine that their professional relationship would develop as they grew older and was able to dedicate more and more of their life towards their career.

Well put, and a very good point.

 

[Cavemonster]

But then, as critical thinkers should we not either suspend judgment or, pending evidence that pushes this beyond reasonable doubt, consider him not guilty?

Why use a lower standard of evidence here? Personal gratification? Closure?

Our personal opinions on the vast majority of subjects don't fit the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a simple fact that humans have opinions on things that they don't have absolute certainty of. If we never articulated our opinions short of certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, we would never speak.

 

[DragonLady]

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

No; probably not -and I'm sure the accuser thought of that. One of them sold off his collection of memorabilia before the documentary aired; probably assumed the items would drop in value.

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.

No; of course not. That can be said of any set of circumstances:

Standing to profit does not mean the accusation is untrue.

__Fill in the blank__does not mean the accusation is untrue.

But the more times one of those statements has to be made, the harder it is to ignore the growing pile of motives to embellish or outright lie; especially when evaluating claims that are not accompanied with any real evidence.

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.

Oh no, no, no; I have no reason to think any such thing.

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.

Think about it other way: if a movie script is full of half truths or lies, but the directors and producers can find two guys who are able to act so well the whole nation holds their breath while they show off some jewelry, what does that do for their careers?

An association with MJ got them a spot in the limelight; and now every person who has any job opening that somehow relates might be more willing to consider them.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing; but it is something we should consider when questioning the motives of the people who are bringing all this up now, so many years after MJ's death.

 

[Belz...]

Our personal opinions on the vast majority of subjects don't fit the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a simple fact that humans have opinions on things that they don't have absolute certainty of.

And this being a critical thinking forum, I'd think that we'd strive to have opinions that are a bit more robust. This might not be a courtroom, but this isn't a Youtube comments section, either. Or at least it shouldn't be.

If we never articulated our opinions short of certainty beyond a reasonable doubt, we would never speak.

No, we would speak with caveats.

 

[DragonLady]

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.



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.



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.



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:



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"?



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.



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

Okay; your post covers a LOT of ground, and I haven't had my coffee yet, so I'll come back to it, and then break into pieces.

 

[DragonLady]

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.

Yeah; it's weird to me, too. Most of us don't want such reminders of our lovers, let alone people who have hurt and abused us.

But it did make a very powerful piece of filmography; and either bolstered the claim or makes it even more suspicious, depending on your own interpretation.