Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry


Message added by OtterMommy

The guidelines for this thread are in the first post.  Please familiarize yourself with them and check frequently as any changes or additions will be posted there (as well as in an in-thread post).

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

Didn't R. Kelly's first statutory rape trial have actual video evidence of him having sex with underaged girls and they still couldn't get a conviction out of it?

R. Kelly said it wasn't him on the tape and I believe the courts ruled that the video quality was so bad that they couldn't prove it was him.

3 hours ago, Makai said:

Since Michael Jackson has come up, it’s worth noting that the lawsuits brought by the two accusers featured in Leaving Neverland and are going to trial in the near future. 

Personally, I don’t believe that the previous trial or official investigations prove anything one way or the other. Michael’s level of fame and the nature of sexual assault trials (particularly in the pre-MeToo era) makes me feel nothing short of a confession would have gotten a conviction. 

The lawsuits are more going to examine the culpability of the employees of Jackson in protecting the accusers from harm, which may reveal some new things but I'm not sure we'll get a real deep dive into Jackson's actual deeds, at least of a sexual nature. I'll wait until the trial, though.

As far as the previous investigations go, #MeToo might have made them go differently but I'm not really sure. The rumours surrounding Jackson were way more of the type of "he's literally an overgrown man child" than "he's a child sexual predator". This doesn't mean he didn't do things that were wrong- like "Jesus juice" and sharing a bed with kids- but I don't think it's a given he'd be a convicted molester in an alternate scenario.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
(edited)

Jackson showed children pornography as part of grooming them, and he also had a huge collection of porn that had been altered to include children's faces. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/michael-jackson-police-reports-pornography-collection 

What he was doing goes well beyond being an awkward weirdo stuck in childhood and basically has all the hallmarks of a child molester. 

Robert Berchtold also did the same thing with Jan Broberg in sharing a bed with her. It's not an innocent quirk. It's a grooming tactic abusers use to break down and confuse normal boundaries, and the families that buy this lie are being groomed just as much as the intended victim. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 4
  • Applause 7
  • Useful 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Danielg342 said:

The rumours surrounding Jackson were way more of the type of "he's literally an overgrown man child" than "he's a child sexual predator".

I strongly disagree. Supporters of his framed it has an “overgrown man child” but the actual allegations are that of the child sexual predator. 

57 minutes ago, Zella said:

It's a grooming tactic abusers use to break down and confuse normal boundaries, and the families that buy this lie are being groomed just as much as the intended victim. 

Exactly. 

  • Like 5
  • Applause 3
Link to comment
(edited)
6 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

R. Kelly said it wasn't him on the tape and I believe the courts ruled that the video quality was so bad that they couldn't prove it was him.

There was no ruling by a judge that it was inadmissible. His defense was that it wasn’t him and that the girl wasn’t who the prosecutors claimed. The jury watched the video and found him not guilty. There were photographs of him and the same underaged girl found in his Florida that were ruled inadmissible. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Makai said:

There was no ruling by a judge that it was inadmissible.

I didn't say it that was the ruling. I said the video quality was so bad that the court accepted R. Kelly's defence that it wasn't him on the tape.

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Jackson showed children pornography as part of grooming them, and he also had a huge collection of porn that had been altered to include children's faces. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/michael-jackson-police-reports-pornography-collection 

The Vanity Fair article includes a statement from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office that disputes the veracity of the documents that Radar Online uncovered (the Radar Online article is no longer up). The FBI searched Michael Jackson's computer and found no evidence of criminal material. The Independent Press Standards Organisation said in a ruling on a complaint made by Taj Jackson, Michael's nephew, that the claim that child porn was found in Michael's home was "an allegation and not presented as fact". NPR's 2019 timeline on the Michael Jackson allegations state that the allegation that Jackson showed the kids porn was brought up just once when Gavin Arvizo took the stand during the 2005 trial.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 3
Link to comment

A nephew of Michael Jackson (who may have been financially dependent on his uncle) claimed his uncle was framed via the magazine's reporting, what a surprise. .The Addams Family Eye Roll GIF by absurdnoise

  • Like 3
Link to comment
(edited)
3 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I didn't say it that was the ruling. I said the video quality was so bad that the court accepted R. Kelly's defence that it wasn't him on the tape.

Are you talking about the jury verdict? When I see references to the court, I assume it refers to the judge. What I’ve found said the jury didn’t believe it was proven that the girl was underage. 

Kelly’s lawyer did also argue that it wasn’t him because Kelly doesn’t have a mole and the person on the video had a mole visible at one point. But I don’t know if the jury believed that part of the defense and his later conviction has since proven it was him in the video. 

3 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

The Vanity Fair article includes a statement from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office that disputes the veracity of the documents that Radar Online uncovered (the Radar Online article is no longer up).

I find the Santa Barbara County Sheriff statement doesn’t really give any answers. Some of what Radar published was official reports and some was from internet and unknown sources. I didn’t see what they published so can’t really judge if it was damning or complete lies. 

3 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

The Independent Press Standards Organisation said in a ruling on a complaint made by Taj Jackson, Michael's nephew, that the claim that child porn was found in Michael's home was "an allegation and not presented as fact".

That doesn’t really land on either side of the argument. Taj Jackson filed a complaint about how a British newspaper reported on a legal issue with the current lawsuit. The accusers are asked for those files to be unsealed. The part you quoted is from the newspaper’s defense and not from the IPSO’s ruling. They rejected Jackson’s complaint. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 3
  • Useful 2
Link to comment

I feel like I'm just going in circles so I don't know how much longer I'm going to stay in this particular discussion.

R. Kelly's defence had other factors, no doubt, but a big part of his defence was "the video is too grainy to know if it's him on the tape."

As far as Taj is concerned, he- and the Jackson estate- complained to the IPSO that the idea that Michael had child porn was demonstrably false. The newspaper, the Mail on Sunday (the Daily Mail's Sunday paper) countered by saying they did not say the claim was true and acknowledged that it was still just an allegation. The IPSO sided with the Mail.

The part with the IPSO came up because the claim was made that Michael Jackson had child porn. I quoted the IPSO's article to state that the claim is still not a matter of fact. It's just an allegation. The upcoming civil trial may change this perspective, but for now, it has not been proven at all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment

After Michael Jackson was accused the first time if what he did was just innocent child's play he should have thought maybe I shouldn't do anything else that can be misconstrued. But he didn't. He kept doing it and defended it.  That sounds like someone who didn't care if other people didn't like what he was doing. We have heard other celebs say basically the same thing. When you are famous they let you do it.

With regards to Roman Polanski let's not forget there were and are people like Whoopi Goldberg who didn't think he was guilty of "rape rape".  He drugged her but I guess that was just to set the mood.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Applause 9
Link to comment

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Accused of Drugging and Raping 10-Year-Old Boy in New Lawsuit

Quote

The suit, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, is the latest from attorney Tony Buzbee, who announced plans in early October to file 120 new lawsuits against the mogul in the coming months. It’s one of two lawsuits filed in New York on Monday, as another male accuser claimed that he was sexually assaulted by Combs in 2008 while auditioning for “Making the Band” at 17 years old.

 

  • Sad 2
  • Angry 5
Link to comment
6 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

With regards to Roman Polanski let's not forget there were and are people like Whoopi Goldberg who didn't think he was guilty of "rape rape".  He drugged her but I guess that was just to set the mood.

That really sets me teeth on edge. The idea that it's okay to rape someone via non-violent control. It is terrible for anyone to feel that way, but for me, having a woman try to justify another woman's rape (or in this case girl, even worse!) is abominable. I do not care if he cured fucking cancer, he should still be held accountable for what he did. The fact that all really contributes to the world is some movies...RAGE!!!!!

  • Applause 9
Link to comment
8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I'm not surprised. He's been arrested twice for domestic violence. Not that the courts bothered to punish him. 

Unless I completely missed something involving the country singer, I think you might be talking about the actor, Zachary Ty Bryan. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Makai said:

Unless I completely missed something involving the country singer, I think you might be talking about the actor, Zachary Ty Bryan. 

Oh, I was sorry. I didn't know they were two different people.

22 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I'm not surprised. He's been arrested twice for domestic violence. Not that the courts bothered to punish him. 

Nevermind. I didn't know there were two different Zack Bryans/Zachary Ty Bryan.

Link to comment

Artem Chigvintsev and Nikki Bella have finalized their divorce. Not a lot of details to share, but, of note, there will be no spousal support and the two of them dropped their restraining orders against each other. They also agreed to joint custody of their son, Matteo.

The two of them decided to use mediation to settle their disputes, as they found the process "draining". Artem and Nikki are apparently still frosty with each other and they're working on their relationship, but they're glad they can move on.

So yeah...make all that of what you will. Figured I'd provide an update considering the previous discussion.

  • Useful 2
Link to comment
Message added by OtterMommy

The guidelines for this thread are in the first post.  Please familiarize yourself with them and check frequently as any changes or additions will be posted there (as well as in an in-thread post).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...