Official - Michael Jackson was scum

Watched the documentary yesterday.

I always thought MJ was weird, and I found it weird that he sought the company of young boys. After the trial I figured "ok, maybe he didn't touch them, but he's still weird", and I sort of thought of him as a mentally challenged person, socially stuck in his childhood.

The documentary definitely brought me in to the "he did it" camp. The presented narrative explains his oddities and doesn't require any leaps of logic. The - now grown - victims are as believable as anyone I've ever seen, their stories full of details that appear to line up between the two of them and with known information.

I think the documentary will be a first step towards healing for the victims. There will be many people who won't believe it, and even many who will take out their fury on the victims. That's human. With MJ, it's like a loved one being accused for many people. It takes time and effort to come to grips with that, and for many, that'll never happen.
 
DragonLady said:
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.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Often there is a love/hate with the abuser. As a child, I also loved my abuser, and still have momentos.
 
Checkmite said:
And hmm, what do they all just happen to have in common...?



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



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.
Click to expand...


Once again; let me come back to this....
 
Ive seen it mentioned a few times here that the fact that he was acquitted is a sign that he was not a molester. In my view, there is a real difficulty with these kinds of cases because the evidence mostly comes down to, "Do you find the victim credible? Do you find the accused creepy enough?" without much in the way of corroborating evidence (pictures, witnesses, etc) of the abuse. Take the Satanic Panic cases where people served (and are still serving) jail time on only, at the end of the day, the word of a child -a child who had been coached and fed false memories by "experts" obsessed with bizarre but non-existent "satanic ritual abuse."

As a result of what I've learned from observing such cases, a jury verdict is not the be all end all of the truth. MJ's acquittal is one data point but there are other data points. As has been said many times: We can't know, but we each have enough data to form an opinion on how likely it is that he molested kids or not.
 
Matthew Best said:
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/
Click to expand...


Okay; this post has led me down a weird and cringe-worthy rabbit hole.

The link leads to a page with some pictures of the book; and a couple of images of notes from Jackson to the boy. I find it very troubling, and certainly seems like a red flag if it's true.

But, I have to ask...does anyone here know anything about handwriting analysis? If so, is it typical for one's initials to be so different than their signature? I'm not convinced the note with MJ's signature is in the same hand as the note inside the book?

ETA: Also...the first two notes (one with a drawing, one inside the book) seem to be from Jackson to the boy, and the third (on the stationery with the image of a child) from the boy to Jackson, but the handwritings are very, very similar so it's hard to figure out exactly what is going on.

Does anyone know more?
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those kinds of expiration dates are not uncommon. I know this because I grew up in foster care. A lot of foster parents only want kids in a certain age range -and refuse to interact much at all with those outside of their preferred range.

I think it's rotten, but it's not rare or -I guess- abnormal. :boggled:
 
DragonLady said:
Okay; this post has led me down a weird and cringe-worthy rabbit hole.

The link leads to a page with some pictures of the book; and a couple of images of notes from Jackson to the boy. I find it very troubling, and certainly seems like a red flag if it's true.

But, I have to ask...does anyone here know anything about handwriting analysis? If so, is it typical for one's initials to be so different than their signature? I'm not convinced the note with MJ's signature is in the same hand as the note inside the book?

ETA: Also...the first two notes (one with a drawing, one inside the book) seem to be from Jackson to the boy, and the third (on the stationery with the image of a child) from the boy to Jackson, but the handwritings are very, very similar so it's hard to figure out exactly what is going on.

Does anyone know more?
Click to expand...

What's your working hypothesis at the moment?

Are you working from the idea that the most likely explanation is some combination of essentially innocent behavior plus false allegations from the accusers?

You say that the book is "a red flag if it's true", but what does "red flag" mean, when you use it this way? When you say the book would be a red flag, do you mean that it would be evidence in support of the accusations? Do you mean it would prompt you to re-interpret the other evidence so far presented?

I mean, at this point you seem to be coming down to, either it's evidence of an unpleasant truth, or it's a forgery of some kind. Is that where you're really at with this?
 
Checkmite said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can't dispute that. But as I posted earlier, it's really not a rare thing. Lots of my foster parents only liked to interact with kids of a certain age range and/or sex, and really didn't want anything to do with any others.

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.
Click to expand...

The book in question is certainly strange. A collection of images of young boys -many of them naked- doing boy things (playing, exploring, etc.) I'm not surprised Jackson -who arguably never was a boy- would be interested in seeing what boys do, but am very much weirded out if he gave a copy of it to a boy.

Mind you, the book is NOT pornographic, is not illegal, can be purchased by anyone from all kinds of venues, and I'm open to the idea the boy may have even asked Jackson to buy it for him. We don't know, and so while it's a red flag to me, it's not a smoking gun.

This is a work day for me, so maybe more later.....
 
Are you working from the idea that the most likely explanation is some combination of essentially innocent behavior plus false allegations from the accusers?
Click to expand...

I mean, at this point you seem to be coming down to, either it's evidence of an unpleasant truth, or it's a forgery of some kind. Is that where you're really at with this?
Click to expand...

Yes; at the moment.... I'll have to rethink a few of the things that come out lately. The book and the jewelry are both worth a long, hard look.

At this moment, I still see the $15 million dollar payout the Chandler boy received as being a motive for a lot of very enthusiastic work to make a compelling "me too" case.
 
DragonLady said:
ETA: Also...the first two notes (one with a drawing, one inside the book) seem to be from Jackson to the boy, and the third (on the stationery with the image of a child) from the boy to Jackson, but the handwritings are very, very similar so it's hard to figure out exactly what is going on.

Does anyone know more?
Click to expand...

No, they are all from Jackson to the boy. I'm not sure why you think it's the other way round?
 
DragonLady said:
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.
Click to expand...
wasapi said:
I respectfully disagree. Often there is a love/hate with the abuser. As a child, I also loved my abuser, and still have momentos.
Click to expand...


Indeed, this sort of behaviour is a lot more common than people would think. Human psychology is weird enough under the best of circumstances, and the psychology of trauma adds whole new layers of weird. And when that abuse comes from someone close, a family member or close personal friend, sometimes those mementos can be kept as reminders of the good bits, rather than the bad bits.
 
DragonLady said:
We don't know, and so while it's a red flag to me, it's not a smoking gun.
Click to expand...


The problem in sexual assault cases, unless the offender actually records the assault (which certainly happens), there are only "red flags" and victim testimony; there will pretty much never be a "smoking gun". That's the nature of the beast.
 
Matthew Best said:
No, they are all from Jackson to the boy. I'm not sure why you think it's the other way round?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry; I guess you're right.

When I first compared the notes, I thought the handwriting on the first and third were different.

On a second look, I can see the bottom of the letters are missing, as if they ran off the page (but they didn't run over the letters in "Neverland Valley" so I'm not sure what went on there).
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
No, they are all from Jackson to the boy. I'm not sure why you think it's the other way round?
Click to expand...

I can see the mistake - the boy's first name was "Michael", but the bulk of the article consistently refers to him by his last name (Jacobshagen) and uses "Michael" almost exclusively to refer to Jackson; so seeing the letters addressed to "Michael" in the middle of the article could lead to confusion.
 
theprestige said:
I'm getting the distinct impression that it's more of a "hope it's the other way round".
Click to expand...

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't know any of the people involved, don't receive a penny from any of the players, don't expect any of this to impact myself personally in any way.

I just believe that if a person is going to be hounded through history for his misdeeds, we should all be convinced he actually performed those deeds.

You seem convinced, so convince me.
 
Checkmite said:
I can see the mistake - the boy's first name was "Michael", but the bulk of the article consistently refers to him by his last name (Jacobshagen) and uses "Michael" almost exclusively to refer to Jackson; so seeing the letters addressed to "Michael" in the middle of the article could lead to confusion.
Click to expand...

Yes; I went back and reread everything, and now see why I got mixed up.

I thought it was two different signatures, too.

(should always have lots of coffee before posting)
 
luchog said:
The problem in sexual assault cases, unless the offender actually records the assault (which certainly happens), there are only "red flags" and victim testimony; there will pretty much never be a "smoking gun". That's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless something has been found to be completely impossible or entirely false, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence must suffice. I don't usually have a problem with that, for the most part.

It bothers me in some death penalty cases, though. :(
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would say, consider that if we are to take Robson at his word, he "came to his senses" after defending Jackson against these charges in legal proceedings. Watching the accusations of other boys being swept away and dismissed because there was no "proof" may have given him an appreciation for the importance of physical evidence. A child-size diamond-encrusted wedding ring probably counts as evidence of an inappropriate relationship at best, even if it doesn't necessarily prove the sexual details.

As an aside, the existence of the ring seems to be a count against a financial motive. If Robson needed money, he likely wouldn't have been able to afford to buy a diamond ring to support a made-up story; if the story wasn't made-up, but Robson's motive in coming forward was still financial, he could always have sold the ring at some point. -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom