Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro

Closing arguments.. they’re long, so best to read when you have some time, unless you’d like me to read them for you as well.

https://www.mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_6_02_2005.pdf

https://www.mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_6_03_2005.pdf

Do you realise you’re defending the behaviour of a man who rang up the mothers of little boys in the middle of the night and asked them to drop them over to him? Think about that for a second. I think I’m done engaging with someone who sees no issue with that.

Flippyfloppy

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can you provide links to support this as I don't believe all of that.

Especially #3 - I believe he had porn (straight porn) but not necessary out for boys to "discover". Also if you think about it if he was a child in a mans body and acted sometimes like a 12 year old boy, maybe he did look at "boobies" with another boy - again this is very weird but it does not make him a rapist.

#4 I'm not so sure about, please provide links

#1 yeah so what? doesn't make him a rapist - Bret Barnes continues to support Michael Jackson

Again there is zero evidence out there that Michael Jackson was a paedophile - just several money-grabbing mentally unhinged men. Yes his behaviour was weird, not normal, uncomfortable etc. but that doesn't make him a sexual predator.

But he wasn’t a child in a mans body!!

Looking forward to trying that one if I ever do anything wrong! ‘I’m actually a child in a mans body, haven’t you seen the movie Big!’

Sleeper12

8-10 wrote: »

Brett Barnes's latest tweet:

https://twitter.com/IAmBrettBarnes/status/1089394021770752000

Very clever quote imo
Many posters have stated that they believe him guilty because: insert tabloid false fact here


People who weren't in the court, didn't see all the evidence or hear all of the evidence are happy to condemn someone based on mixed facts & lies


You've gota love social media :mad:

pawdee

I always remember watching Wacko Jacko's trial on tv when he had a sudden fit of coughing. The judge said to him "Jaysus that's a bad old cough you have there Michael. Have you tried sucking a Fisherman's Friend?" To which he replied "Don't you think I'm in enough trouble as it is?" One from the vault that. Sorry lads!

professore

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Very clever quote imo
Many posters have stated that they believe him guilty because: insert tabloid false fact here


People who weren't in the court, didn't see all the evidence or hear all of the evidence are happy to condemn someone based on mixed facts & lies


You've gota love social media :mad:

You just described the #MeToo movement.

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Can you provide links to support this as I don't believe all of that.

Especially #3 - I believe he had porn (straight porn) but not necessary out for boys to "discover". Also if you think about it if he was a child in a mans body and acted sometimes like a 12 year old boy, maybe he did look at "boobies" with another boy - again this is very weird but it does not make him a rapist.

#4 I'm not so sure about, please provide links

#1 yeah so what? doesn't make him a rapist - Bret Barnes continues to support Michael Jackson

Again there is zero evidence out there that Michael Jackson was a paedophile - just several money-grabbing mentally unhinged men. Yes his behaviour was weird, not normal, uncomfortable etc. but that doesn't make him a sexual predator.

A grown man looking at "boobies" with children is all kinds of wrong. Showing children pornographic material is rightly considered sexual abuse these days. It's a well known grooming tactic.

Also, he was not a child in a man's body. That is not possible. He was a manipulative adult who portrayed himself in such a way, with the fake voice etc. I think I can say with certainty that you wouldn't allow one of your children or family members to share a bed with a grown man who hung out with children almost obsessively. You would know it was wrong.Or at least I hope so!

Many people who worked with him over the years have said how they felt very uncomfortable with his behaviour with boys. Have a look at the pictures taken with his special friends over the years (before he dumped them for younger versions. What was that all about if it was so innocent?) - he is always touching them in some way, and posing more like a couple would. The body language makes for uncomfortable viewing alright. It's right there in plain sight.

These facts are all from the court papers and police reports, not tabloids. It's easy to read them and see all the evidence, that was never contested by Jackson.

Flippyfloppy

Didn’t MJ write most of his songs? They were all amazing, and resonated with millions around the world, and still do. The themes he wrote about had a wide range. Naive child in a mans body he wasn’t.

Adamocovic

Boggles wrote: »

You'd imagine the maker of the "documentary" would have contacted Barnes for an interview, given it appears he spent the most time with Jackson, seems like a gross oversight if you are in fact trying to portray the truth.

innuendo141 wrote: »

Any documentary I've ever watched about John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer contained interviews with both victims families AND people that knew or were related to the killers, offering various different viewpoints. It's beyond me why the Director thought keeping just to the accusers and their families could lead to being called a balanced documentary.

Director has addressed this previously. He said he had contemplated interviewing men who were some of the kids that were close to him but decided to focus the time on the two who claimed they were abused. Saying other people's experience did not influence these two people's. It seems to be focused on their experiences rather than Jackson's entire profile or activities. Could be proven wrong when watching though.

To paraphrase him "If nothing happened with some of the boys, fine, but it does not take away from what happened to these two which is the focous of our movie".

Now I agree a thorough both sides come to your own conclusion style documentary is much more enjoyable, but I haven't seen this one yet so who knows. I know Making a Murderer annoyed me at how one sided it was. No doubt the Jackson estate will try to not only pump money into slamming and discredit the doc but possibly a retaliation of their own similar to the Making a Murderer style.

Boggles

Adamocovic wrote: »

Director has addressed this previously. He said he had contemplated interviewing men who were some of the kids that were close to him but decided to focus the time on the two who claimed they were abused. Saying other people's experience did not influence these two people's. It seems to be focused on their experiences rather than Jackson's entire profile or activities. Could be proven wrong when watching though.

To paraphrase him "If nothing happened with some of the boys, fine, but it does not take away from what happened to these two which is the focous of our movie".

But that is just a one sided documentary against a person that is dead with no due diligence or balance.

The definition of propaganda you could say.

Adamocovic wrote: »

Now I agree a thorough both sides come to your own conclusion style documentary is much more enjoyable, but I haven't seen this one yet so who knows. I know Making a Murderer annoyed me at how one sided it was. No doubt the Jackson estate will try to not only pump money into slamming and discredit the doc but possibly a retaliation of their own similar to the Making a Murderer style.

TBF to MAM.

Theboinkmaster

retro:electro wrote: »

Closing arguments.. they’re long, so best to read when you have some time, unless you’d like me to read them for you as well.

https://www.mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_6_02_2005.pdf

https://www.mjfacts.com/transcripts/Court_Transcript_6_03_2005.pdf

Do you realise you’re defending the behaviour of a man who rang up the mothers of little boys in the middle of the night and asked them to drop them over to him? Think about that for a second. I think I’m done engaging with someone who sees no issue with that.

You are claiming these statements as fact when they are not, they were assertions made by lawyers in a trial, they are not facts. A trial in which Jackson was completely exonerated.

a) there is no evidence of him ringing up mothers in the middle of the night etc.

b) even if that was the case I am not defending this behaviour. I am stating that it does not prove him to be a paedophile.

Theboinkmaster

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

But he wasn’t a child in a mans body!!

Looking forward to trying that one if I ever do anything wrong! ‘I’m actually a child in a mans body, haven’t you seen the movie Big!’

and how does this prove he was a paedophile?

retro:electro

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You are claiming these statements as fact when they are not, they were assertions made by lawyers in a trial, they are not facts. A trial in which Jackson was completely exonerated.

a) there is no evidence of him ringing up mothers in the middle of the night etc.

b) even if that was the case I am not defending this behaviour. I am stating that it does not prove him to be a paedophile.

Assertions that were not disputed or challenged by the defence, which was my initial point.
But you are defending his behaviour.. you even said earlier that there’s nothing rapey about a grown man who thinks he’s Peter Pan showing young boys porn and boobs. As grim as it gets.

Adamocovic

Boggles wrote: »

But that is just a one sided documentary against a person that is dead with no due diligence or balance.

The definition of propaganda you could say.





TBF to MAM.

Maybe we should reserve judgement to it having no due diligence or balance until we have watched it, and being simply propaganda until we have seen it. Majority of critics seem to be praising the piece.

If the documentary's purpose is to show the effects of grooming and for these two men to tell their story then that's it's aim. And like the director has said, that was his focus, so he did not include people who claim nothing happened.

And for MAM, yes you can say that a lot of people refused to be a part of it, fair enough, but it was still a completely one sided based documentary that left out a considerable amount of details about Avery to help sway the audience, but then again I don't want to fall down the rabbit hole on that. It was enjoyable.

I'm looking forward to this one.

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I think I can say with certainty that you wouldn't allow one of your children or family members to share a bed with a grown man who hung out with children almost obsessively. You would know it was wrong.Or at least I hope so!

Yes of course, you are 100% correct I would not allow that and think it's mad. I think he was mad, odd, slightly disturbed etc.

However I still don't think he was a paedophile and have seen no such evidence that we was. Just accusers chasing $$$ cash.

Theboinkmaster

retro:electro wrote: »

But you are defending his behaviour.. you even said earlier that there’s nothing rapey with a grown man who thinks he’s Peter Pan showing young boys porn and boobs. As grim as it gets.

I am not defending his behaviour I am :

a) disputing that this ever really happened

b) even if a version of these events happened I don't think it concludes that he is a paedophile.

Flippyfloppy

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

and how does this prove he was a paedophile?

My statement was not intended to prove he was a paedophile. It was directed at those who excuse him having young boys sleep in his bed rather than supplying them with their own guest bedrooms, due to being a ‘child in a mans body.’

It just reminded me of this story: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3356084/amp/I-ve-gone-child-Husband-father-seven-52-leaves-wife-kids-live-transgender-SIX-YEAR-OLD-girl-named-Stefonknee.html

retro:electro

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

b) even if a version of these events happened I don't think it concludes that he is a paedophile.

So you don’t think the fact a grown man likes to sleep beside young boys (only), might have shown them porn at an inappropriate age, called up their mothers to have them drop the boys over to him in the middle of the night.. none of those variables tell you that maybe he’s a wrong un and a paedo? What exactly do you need to confirm this to be the case? Photographic evidence of him mid rape? What kind of person am I even engaging with here?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

So you don’t think the fact a grown man likes to sleep beside young boys (only)

Or put another way, he was heterosexual so sharing a bed with girls may have been inappropriate in his mind.

Before you go off on one, it was what was in his mind that is important, not yours.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Or put another way, he was heterosexual so sharing a bed with girls may have been inappropriate in his mind.

Before you go off on one, it was what was in his mind that is important, not yours.

... so he says while trying to infer on his behalf what was going on in his mind.
Do you even realise the irony of what you’re coming out with?

And just so we’re clear- it’s inappropriate for an adult to share a bed with any minor, girl or boy, that isn’t a sibling or a relative in some way. Never mind make a habit out of it and think it’s beautiful. Scary that even needs to be said but here we are.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

... so he says while trying to infer on his behalf what was going on in his mind.
Do you even realise the irony of what you’re coming out with?

And just so we’re clear- it’s inappropriate for an adult to share a bed with any minor, girl or boy, that isn’t a sibling or a relative in some way. Never mind make a habit out of it and think it’s beautiful. Scary that even needs to be said but here we are.

And there you are off on one.

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Yes of course, you are 100% correct I would not allow that and think it's mad. I think he was mad, odd, slightly disturbed etc.

However I still don't think he was a paedophile and have seen no such evidence that we was. Just accusers chasing $$$ cash.

And that's how abusers get away with it, people excusing their behaviour as just odd etc.

Each one thing on it's own doesn't prove he was a paedophile. Not right or strange, yes. But all of it together? The intense "friendships" which ended once the boys hit puberty only to be replaced by another that was already lined up, the bed sharing, the tactileness with these boys in full view of everyone to the point it made people uncomfortable, the porn magazines (which by the way if he didn't show them to the boys then why were they there within easy access as the boys claimed), the naked Polaroid of one these kids, the books containing explicit photos of boys that were made by and marketed to paedophiles as a legal way to own images, the alarms on his bedroom, the accusations, the payouts.

It's not just the boys saying stuff. Members of his staff also testified to seeing Jackson's and the boys underwear on the floor together, him hiding kids in his car when coming in, finding naked photos, inappropriate touching.

Come on now. That is an awful lot of smoke, I really find it hard to believe that an innocent man would have all those red flags. If it walks like a duck etc. There is pretty much no other conclusion than that he was a paedophile and that he groomed and abused children. Otherwise he is literally the most unfortunate or stupid person ever to have all that against him. It's impossible to innocently do all those things, many of which are hallmarks of an abuser.

8-10

ceadaoin. wrote: »

And that's how abusers get away with it, people excusing their behaviour as just odd etc.

Each one thing on it's own doesn't prove he was a paedophile. Not right or strange, yes. But all of it together? The intense "friendships" which ended once the boys hit puberty only to be replaced by another that was already lined up, the bed sharing, the tactileness with these boys in full view of everyone to the point it made people uncomfortable, the porn magazines (which by the way if he didn't show them to the boys then why were they there within easy access as the boys claimed), the naked Polaroid of one these kids, the books containing explicit photos of boys that were made by and marketed to paedophiles as a legal way to own images, the alarms on his bedroom, the accusations, the payouts.

It's not just the boys saying stuff. Members of his staff also testified to seeing Jackson's and the boys underwear on the floor together, him hiding kids in his car when coming in, finding naked photos, inappropriate touching.

Come on now. That is an awful lot of smoke, I really find it hard to believe that an innocent man would have all those red flags. If it walks like a duck etc. There is pretty much no other conclusion than that he was a paedophile and that he groomed and abused children. Otherwise he is literally the most unfortunate or stupid person ever to have all that against him. It's impossible to innocently do all those things, many of which are hallmarks of an abuser.

At the same time however, if there have been genuine abuse victims, they've been seriously undermined by the previous false accusations.

If the Chandler and Arviso accusations (being the 2 that I think everybody is familiar with) never happened, it would be a lot easier to believe a new accusation.

Sad that that's the case but it's true. It'd be like a horrifically tragic version of the boy who cried wolf

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There is pretty much no other conclusion than that he was a paedophile and that he groomed and abused children. Otherwise he is literally the most unfortunate or stupid person ever to have all that against him. It's impossible to innocently do all those things, many of which are hallmarks of an abuser.

I think it's fair to say Michael Jackson was not a normal person nor is it likely there will ever be a human like him again. Did you see the way he danced, sung, wrote music? The man was an utter genius and also completely mental with a fvcked up childhood. Nothing normal about him.

You are comparing him to a regular person and concluding he sexually abused children. He wasn't normal, not by a long shot so yeah I can accept some of his weird behaviour as not meaning he was a sexual predator.

A lot of the above stuff you mentioned are claims not facts (showing kids porn as an example).

A court found him not guilty and in his 50 years on this planet no other accusers went public or to the police....

retro:electro

So was he a “genius” or a mentally stunted “child in a man’s body”? Can hardly be both. Even Lisa Marie Presley said he was a master manipulator and the way he manipulated the media made her uncomfortable. But I’m sure even she, inheritor of her late father’s $100m estate, was just critical of him for the benefit of financial gain also...

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I think it's fair to say Michael Jackson was not a normal person nor is it likely there will ever be a human like him again. Did you see the way he danced, sung, wrote music? The man was an utter genius and also completely mental with a fvcked up childhood. Nothing normal about him.

You are comparing him to a regular person and concluding he sexually abused children. He wasn't normal, not by a long shot so yeah I can accept some of his weird behaviour as not meaning he was a sexual predator.

A lot of the above stuff you mentioned are claims not facts (showing kids porn as an example).

A court found him not guilty and in his 50 years on this planet no other accusers went public or to the police....

The accusers said he showed them porn and left it around for them to see. The police search found a lot of porn in the areas that the children used. Doesn't sound like they were lying does it?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

the porn magazines (which by the way if he didn't show them to the boys then why were they there within easy access as the boys claimed),

You mean the Playboy that actually hadn't been published yet? :pac:

That was a pretty big nail in the credibility of the accusers.

The 2 "art" books were in a collection of about 10,000, one of them was given by a fan.

Naked Polaroid of one of the boys? First I have heard of that, have you a link?

Jackson was under investigation for a decade by a DA and FBI who was determined to nail him.

They found no evidence. Nothing.

On top of that the accusers family were criminal con artists, pure and simple. The accusations were torn to shreds in the trial, the case should have never been brought against him.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

You mean the Playboy that actually hadn't been published yet? :pac:

That was a pretty big nail in the credibility of the accusers.

The 2 "art" books were in a collection of about 10,000, one of them was given by a fan.

Naked Polaroid of one of the boys? First I have heard of that, have you a link?

Jackson was under investigation for a decade by a DA and FBI who was determined to nail him.

They found no evidence. Nothing.

On top of that the accusers family were criminal con artists, pure and simple. The accusations were torn to shreds in the trial, the case should have never been brought against him.

There was a lot of porn

https://www.mjfacts.com/neverland-porn/

There is a link there to the police report if you want to have a look.

The 2 dubious books were in a locked filing cabinet in Jackson's bedroom, not just in amongst the rest of his art books, and one had a personal inscription by Jackson himself. So seems like he himself treated these books differently than the others. I wonder why that is if he had no idea of their contents or reputation

Here is a link to the application by the prosecution to have the 2 photos submitted as evidence , among with the other stuff. Jackson's lawyers argued against them being allowed because they "didn't know who they were or why they were there", so they definitely existed.

http://www.mjfacts.com/resources/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

Boggles

mjfacts.com?

Who exactly is behind that website?

Is that not just a list of "normal" porn that you would find in any single male of his age catalog?

Or nowadays internet browsing history I imagine.

Where is the piece on the "art" books been locked away or the naked Polaroid of one of the boys?

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

mjfacts.com?

Who exactly is behind that website?

Is that not just a list of "normal" porn that you would find in any single male of his age catalog?

Or nowadays internet browsing history I imagine.

Where is the piece on the "art" books been locked away or the naked Polaroid of one of the boys?

I just edited to add the link about the Polaroids. It also contains info about various other items found

Yeah "normal" porn. what's not normal is leaving it lying around all over the place in areas where children have free access.

If you think the website is biased then just click on the actual police reports and items listed on there. It's all there.

retro:electro

This is who you’re defending folks.



Why would any normal, rational minded person be in possession of such a book?