Micky Jackson in trouble again

BBFAN

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Off topic I know but some women chose to believe their husband over their children he's sexually abusing or raping. Fortunately this is rare but delusion is alive and well for sure

Irony is alive and well alright. :rolleyes:

This is coming from the person who CHOOSES to believe Wacko is completely innocent.

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

This is coming from the person who CHOOSES to believe Wacko is completely innocent.

I suggest you go back and read the thread again. I have stated dozens of times that I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. I won't label a man a paedophile without proof. So far no one has provided proof. Nothing from the conspiracy sites have stood up to scrutiny & logic. I'm open to him being innocent or guilty.

Reading the thread there is one side who have condemned the man without proof & refuse to accept the there is a possibility he's innocent. Very few if any on the other side of the argument insist he's definitely innocent. They would rather wait for proof before labeling him a monster.

In 1993 the police searched his house and found nothing illegal. Nothing. They had no evidence that a crime took place & couldn't charge him with any crime. In 2004 he was charged, went to court and was found not guilty. He wasn't found not guilty because of reasonable doubt. The jury truly believed him innocent. Members of the jury believe that the boys parents were after money & that no crime took place. They are on the record for saying this. There are YouTube videos with them saying this. The jury heard & saw all of the evidence. I don't understand how someone here on boards.ie can say that he did it with zero proof when the jury that saw the real proof say he's innocent and the parents were money grabbers. At least I can say I'm open either way. I just need proof before I call him a paedophile.

BBFAN

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suggest you go back and read the thread again. I have stated dozens of times that I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. I won't label a man a paedophile without proof. So far no one has provided proof. Nothing from the conspiracy sites have stood up to scrutiny & logic. I'm open to him being innocent or guilty.

Reading the thread there is one side who have condemned the man without proof & refuse to accept the there is a possibility he's innocent. Very few if any on the other side of the argument insist he's definitely innocent. They would rather wait for proof before labeling him a monster.

In 1993 the police searched his house and found nothing illegal. Nothing. They had no evidence that a crime took place & couldn't charge him with any crime. In 2004 he was charged, went to court and was found not guilty. He wasn't found not guilty because of reasonable doubt. The jury truly believed him innocent. Members of the jury believe that the boys parents were after money & that no crime took place. They are on the record for saying this. There are YouTube videos with them saying this. The jury heard & saw all of the evidence. I don't understand how someone here on boards.ie can say that he did it with zero proof when the jury that saw the real proof say he's innocent and the parents were money grabbers. At least I can say I'm open either way. I just need proof before I call him a paedophile.

You see you're telling complete lies here, you've called his accusers liars straight out, what proof have you got that they are liars?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suggest you go back and read the thread again. I have stated dozens of times that I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. I won't label a man a paedophile without proof. So far no one has provided proof. .

Define "proof". Smoking gun? A series of unexplainable coincidences? Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probability? 51% chances or greater? What a reasonable person may expect to be the truth?

I'm pretty tired of reading your spouting of "proof" every 2nd post- go define proof in your world and you might get (a) some evidence and (b) some respect.

Why don't you for once, put your cards on the table- otherwise you're just messing with people and their views.

Boggles

BBFAN wrote: »

This is coming from the person who CHOOSES to believe Wacko is completely innocent.

Paulina Coccoz - Juror in Trial.

It was pretty obvious that there was no molestation done,” she said. “It was pretty obvious that there were ulterior motives on behalf of the family. And the mother, she orchestrated the whole thing…that’s my opinion. But there wasn’t a shred of evidence that was able to show us or give us any doubt in voting guilty. It was pretty obvious there was no other way to vote other than not guilty

Thoughts?

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

You see you're telling complete lies here, you've called his accusers liars straight out, what proof have you got that they are liars?

Ffs. Why can't anyone read a thread properly. I called the two gents in the movie liars because they are. This is a fact. They are either lying now or purgered themselves & lied in court. It doesn't matter if Jackson is innocent or guilty, these men are proven liars one way or the other. They are liers. The first child lied about Jacksons penis. This is historical fact. The police didn't find any evidence to back up his claims & in the end refused to help them with their inquiries. Remember this family choose to go down the civil route rather than try get a conviction & get him off the street.

The whole family in the 2004 case lied through their teeth.Jordan Chandler, the alleged victim in the 1993 child abuse allegations, left the country rather than appear as a witness. I wonder what he had to hide. He ran from his 2nd chance to take Jackson off the streets.In the event that Chandler gave evidence, Mesereau said that he had prepared witnesses who would say Chandler had told them the abuse never happened and that he would never talk to his parents again for forcing him to lie.
The jury have repeatedly stated stated that the family were only after money
Google: Michael Jackson 2004 jury comments for their words not mine

Flippyfloppy

The way I see it is one group believes Michael Jackson, and the others believes the kids.

I believe the kids. There’s plenty of reasons why Jacko comes across as extremely off, if he wasn’t so cool no kids would have been allowed near him.

Think about the world back in the 90s and early 00s. It was different. Being gay was taboo, completely. People still turned a blind eye against Child Abuse.

Imagine if you were one of these boys, and your parents said to you, let’s get rich! All you have to do is tell everyone Michael Jackson did ______ and _____ to you all those times you were staying over. Don’t worry about having to publically come out and say it!! You’ll just forever be associated with it, all your current and future friends knowing about it.

We’ll have 20 million dollars, be grand son!

No kid would admit to that without it being true.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Why don't you for once, put your cards on the table- otherwise you're just messing with people and their views.

I respect the law. Like the rugby players in the North he was found not guilty. Like the rugby players in the North legally he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is not getting what the law says he should get here.

I have put my views on the table. I don't believe a man should be labeled a paedophile without proof. No one has posted any proof. A court of law couldn't prove it I don't see how anyone here thinks they can prove it

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Define "proof". Smoking gun? A series of unexplainable coincidences? Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probability? 51% chances or greater? What a reasonable person may expect to be the truth?

Definition of proof

 (Entry 1 of 3)

1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

BBFAN

Boggles wrote: »

Paulina Coccoz - Juror in Trial.



Thoughts?

Thoughts on what? That the juror believed the families motives weren't pure?

I couldn't care less. I care more about what the children went through than what their families motives were.

Sleeper12

Flippyfloppy wrote:

The way I see it is one group believes Michael Jackson, and the others believes the kids.

I think you're missing the point of many posters. One group doggedly insists Jackson is guilty and are willing to scour any & all conspiracy sited to back up their blind belief.

Others are looking for some proof before condemning a man

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

The way I see it is one group believes Michael Jackson, and the others believes the kids.

I believe the kids. There’s plenty of reasons why Jacko comes across as extremely off, if he wasn’t so cool no kids would have been allowed near him.

Think about the world back in the 90s and early 00s. It was different. Being gay was taboo, completely. People still turned a blind eye against Child Abuse.

Imagine if you were one of these boys, and your parents said to you, let’s get rich! All you have to do is tell everyone Michael Jackson did ______ and _____ to you all those times you were staying over. Don’t worry about having to publically come out and say it!! You’ll just forever be associated with it, all your current and future friends knowing about it.

We’ll have 20 million dollars, be grand son!

No kid would admit to that without it being true.

You act like the kid would have a choice.

Either way, you don't have to imagine the fooked up repercussions of something like that, it happened.

The kid had to emancipate himself from his lunatic parents and had to go into hiding, probably for rest of his life.

Not before his father tried to kill him with a dumbbell and some mace.

That absolute Scumbag Wade Robson, legally threatened his sister if he didn't come back and participate in his bogus civil case.

Jordi Chandler certainly was a victim, not of Jackson but his fooked up parents.

Boggles

BBFAN wrote: »

Thoughts on what? That the juror believed the families motives weren't pure?

No. The Juror believed the whole thing was bogus and no molestation took place and it was all a ruse by the mother.

You were having a go at a poster for having a similar opinion.

That is the opinion of someone who set through the 16 weeks of the trial.

Flippyfloppy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of many posters. One group doggedly insists Jackson is guilty and are willing to scour any & all conspiracy sited to back up their blind belief.

Others are looking for some proof before condemning a man

I guess the other group considers that there is proof. People judge things by their own experiences and judgements so we’re all literally never going to agree.

I know nothing about Michael Jackson, I don’t even know why I’m caught up I n this thread. Off work sick.

retro:electro

Sadly the last few pro Michael posts have been more unverified “facts”. I’d just urge people who are unsure to look at the actual facts and not unsubstantiated jargon from pro Michael propagandists. One opportune family.. maybe. To the extent that are accusing him? It simply doesn’t happen. Ask yourself why most other popstars of that time didn’t find themselves subject to improper allegations. Why was it the man who openly shared his bed with little boys and found the act beautiful? That should at least lead you to the answer.
The pro side are relying on opinions and liars. The rest of us rely on facts and the word of Michael himself,his lawyer, and the boys in question; ergo most of the people involved and privy to the facts. You’d have to wonder what type of person would openly defend someone who has an obvious interest in little boys. But as the saying goes there’s nowt as queer as folk.

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

You act like the kid would have a choice.

Either way, you don't have to imagine the fooked up repercussions of something like that, it happened.

The kid had to emancipate himself from his lunatic parents and had to go into hiding, probably for rest of his life.

Not before his father tried to kill him with a dumbbell and some mace.

That absolute Scumbag Wade Robson, legally threatened his sister if he didn't come back and participate in his bogus civil case.

Jordi Chandler certainly was a victim, not of Jackson but his fooked up parents.

If it was true, the child would have needed huge convincing to get the strength to take this to court. And when he lost he probably felt let down by his parents, and humiliated publicly too. This was a time when we were unaware of the abuse that was being covered up, we now know about the likes of the two Corey’s.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Sadly the last few pro Michael posts have been more inverified “facts”.

I have no idea what an "inverified" fact is.

But you have unashamedly based all your evidence on links from lunatic fringe conspiracy sites.

Are you for fooking real?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea what an "inverified" fact is.

But you have unashamedly based all your evidence on links from lunatic fringe conspiracy sites.

Are you for fooking real?

The only conspiracy site I’ve consulted on this thread is a pro Michael one. If you can provide proof of ANY other conspiracy site I’ve referenced, please do. The floor is yours.

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

If it was true, the child would have needed huge convincing to get the strength to take this to court. And when he lost he probably felt let down by his parents, and humiliated publicly too.

Sorry what?

I'm taking about the Chandlers, it didn't go to court.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

The only conspiracy site I’ve consulted on this thread is a pro Michael one. If you can provide proof of ANY other conspiracy site I’ve referenced, please do. The floor is yours.

retro:electro wrote: »

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

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

10 seconds.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea what an "inverified" fact is.

But you have unashamedly based all your evidence on links from lunatic fringe conspiracy sites.

Are you for fooking real?

Also quite rich coming from someone whose link was sourced at “mjtruthnow.wordpress.com”
:pac:

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Also quite rich coming from someone whose link was sourced at “mjtruthnow.wordpress.com”
:pac:

Rich?

Rich would be to deny it.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

10 seconds.

Yeah that’s not a conspiracy site. They verify all their facts and reference them annotations throughout which link to published facts. Sheeesh.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Rich?

Rich would be to deny it.

Well at least you’re admitting to talking out your arse. That’s something.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I respect the law. Like the rugby players in the North he was found not guilty. Like the rugby players in the North legally he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is not getting what the law says he should get here.

I have put my views on the table. I don't believe a man should be labeled a paedophile without proof. No one has posted any proof. A court of law couldn't prove it I don't see how anyone here thinks they can prove it

more wish wash so- I thought so. you can't answer my question- just more smoke and mirrors like a lot of idiots in AH when they really have nothing to say- thanks.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

One opportune family

Two families, 1993 and 2005

retro:electro wrote: »

Why was it the man who openly shared his bed with little boys and found the act beautiful?

This has been done to death. It's completely inappropriate, though not on it's own criminal, behaviour.

It astonishes me that you people think that reasonable parents would allow their kids to attend sleepovers at Neverland. I sure wouldn't allow my kids to.

Sleeper12

Flippyfloppy wrote:

I guess the other group considers that there is proof. People judge things by their own experiences and judgements so we’re all literally never going to agree.

Here's the thing. A jury heard the real evidence. They didn't feed off conspiracy sites. Just the real evidence. They saw Jackson, the kid & the parents up close every day. They heard their evidence. They heard all of this and found him not guilty. They have gone further and stated that they believed him innocent rather than just reasonable doubt. They have gone on record saying that they believe that the parents & the child concocted the whole story for financial gain.

While you are entitled to your opinion I don't get how you feel that you know more & know better than the jury. You did not sit in court hearing the evidence every day. You did not see Jackson or the family daily. You didn't see them give evidence. Yet you feel that you know more & better than them.

I believe in our laws. He was tried & found not guilty. Under Irish law, UK law & US law he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. I am giving him the presumption of innocence the law says he has until someone proves otherwise.

We are out of the US jurisdiction so we can post as we please. If it were an Irish case or the rugby case we were discussing in such a way the thread would have been shut down days ago and many posters would have been carded or banned.

It's a big thing label someone cleared in court a paedophile afterwards

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

It astonishes me that you people think that reasonable parents would allow their kids to attend sleepovers at Neverland. I sure wouldn't allow my kids to.

Why not?

8-10 wrote: »

Two families, 1993 and 2005.

You might need to re-read my sentence there.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

Why not?

Do you have kids?

Do you seriously think a good answer to maybe having them sleepover, potentially in the same bed as a grown man, in a situation where you are not present is to say "why not?"

You don't think there's anything unusual with that?? You think we should all be ok with grown men sleeping in bed with children they're not related to? Honestly?

fin12

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I see I missed a cracking argument there


Obsessive Michael Jackson fans are a whole other level of crazy. There's something missing in your life if you display that level of devotion to a complete stranger!

Actually there’s not more like I’ve been drinking since 11am.