Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

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 we're not related to? Honestly?

*woooosh

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

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.

I've answered several times now. I respect the law. The law states Jackson has the presumption of innocence. I wouldn't call him a paedophile no more than I'd call someone in Ireland found not guilty of rape a rapist.

If someone comes up with proof I'm happy to condemn Jackson. The DPP found no evidence in 1993 & provided no proof in the 2004 trial so it's unlikely any genuine proof will ever suffice. I think the best you could hope for is for Culkin to speak out negatively about Jackson. He hasn't condemned the movie yet so it might happen.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

*woooosh

You're gonna have to be clearer than that mate. I asked you if you think it's reasonable or rational to let your kids into that situation, and you're reaction is "why not?"

That's not an answer unless you seriously think it's completely normal behaviour. What is your opinion?

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

You're gonna have to be clearer than that mate. I asked you if you think it's reasonable or rational to let your kids into that situation, and you're reaction is "why not?"

That's not an answer unless you seriously think it's completely normal behaviour. What is your opinion?

No of course not. But you’re staunchly defending someone who saw it as normal behaviour. Soooo there’s that.
You’ve just been double bluffed, in other words.

BBFAN

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I've answered several times now. I respect the law. The law states Jackson has the presumption of innocence. I wouldn't call him a paedophile no more than I'd call someone in Ireland found not guilty of rape a rapist.

If someone comes up with proof I'm happy to condemn Jackson. The DPP found no evidence in 1993 & provided no proof in the 2004 trial so it's unlikely any genuine proof will ever suffice. I think the best you could hope for is for Culkin to speak out negatively about Jackson. He hasn't condemned the movie yet so it might happen.

So if Larry Murphy was found not guilty tomorrow you'd totally respect that and think he's a totally innocent man?

You genuinely believe that no-one ever gets away with a crime? Nah, you're not that naïve and don't pretend to be.

Sleeper12

8-10 wrote:

You're gonna have to be clearer than that mate. I asked you if you think it's reasonable or rational to let your kids into that situation, and you're reaction is "why not?"

The answer is definitely not. These parents were money grabbers. They put the possibility of 15 minutes of fame for them & their kids ahead of their children's safety. This does not make Jackson guilty but it's horrible parenting to risk your child like that with any adult. Some of these kids should have been removed from their parents.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

No of course not. But you’re staunchly defending someone who saw it as normal behaviour. Soooo there’s that.
You’ve just been double bluffed, in other words.

How have I staunchly defended him? I've been clear that he engaged in very questionable and inappropriate behaviour.

I am completely open, as I've mentioned multiple times, to believing something happened if presented with the evidence. I fully believe the Jordy Chandler and Gavin Arviso cases were extortions for money brought about by parents, and I have been sceptical up to now on Wade Robson's accusations. I'm holding judgement on Wade until seeing the documentary and I think it's unfortunate for any genuine victim who may exist that false accusations have happened in the past.

What's the double bluff? You're the one who doesn't seem to believe that the parents were pushing forward false accusations in 1993 and 2005?

8-10

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The answer is definitely not. These parents were money grabbers. They put the possibility of 15 minutes of fame for them & their kids ahead of their children's safety. This does not make Jackson guilty but it's horrible parenting to risk your child like that with any adult. Some of these kids should have been removed from their parents.

Right....this is the point. If we all agree that no parent in their right mind would leave their kids in that sort of situation.....then what else could their motivation have been given that they definitely allowed it to happen......? Either it's a reasonable thing to do or there's something more sinister behind allowing it, you don't just innocently send your kids into situations like that

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

So if Larry Murphy was found not guilty tomorrow you'd totally respect that and think he's a totally innocent man?

Do you understand what presumption is? Because someone legally has the presumption of innocence the law says I should treat them as an innocent person. Yes I would do that. The law doesn't say that I have to "think" he is innocent though.

BBFAN

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do you understand what presumption is? Because someone legally has the presumption of innocence the law says I should treat them as an innocent person. Yes I would do that. The law doesn't say that I have to "think" he is innocent though.

Talk about gymnastics. :rolleyes:

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

Right....this is the point. If we all agree that no parent in their right mind would leave their kids in that sort of situation.....then what else could their motivation have been given that they definitely allowed it to happen......? Either it's a reasonable thing to do or there's something more sinister behind allowing it, you don't just innocently send your kids into situations like that

Because it’s entirely possible that his parents were money grabbers who didn’t care about his welfare and he was abused.
Think about it maybe. And maybe google some statistics and facts about the type of children who predators seek out while you’re at it.

Sleeper12

8-10 wrote:

Right....this is the point. If we all agree that no parent in their right mind would leave their kids in that sort of situation.....then what else could their motivation have been given that they definitely allowed it to happen......? Either it's a reasonable thing to do or there's something more sinister behind allowing it, you don't just innocently send your kids into situations like that

People want fame. These parents wanted their kids photograph in the tabloids beside Jackson. Some felt it gave them some fame and others I believe thought "there could be a book in this"..

They definitely didn't put their child's safety first

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

Because it’s entirely possible that his parents were money grabbers who didn’t care about his welfare and he was abused.
Think about it maybe. And maybe google some statistics and facts about the type of children who predators seek out while you’re at it.

I agree in a generic scenario that is completely possible. But we agree that in these cases the parents were money grabbers at least.

I just don't believe either account, Jordy's is less straightforward as Gavin's was a complete ****show but even then his actions since the trial and the way that he initially revealed to his father that abuse happened just don't make it sound plausible.

As I said I think based on documentary alone R Kelly is probably guilty of multiple felonies with minors, let's see if this documentary is the same, if it is I'm happy to change my mind

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

Talk about gymnastics.

You are the one who used the word "think". Why I don't know because the presumption of innocence has nothing to do with "think"

Jackson was found not guilty. The jury say that they believe him to be innocent. Their words not mine. They also said that the parents bringing the false claims was to do with money. If the jury who heard the evidence feels this way, who am I to say they are wrong. No further evidence has been made since. If it was I'd be happy to look at it & condemn him if it was strong evidence.

I can't condemn a man without evidence.

Boggles

8-10 wrote: »

But we agree that in these cases the parents were money grabbers at least.

They were far more than that.

Evan Chandler was almost certainly a psychopath.

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

As I said I think based on documentary alone R Kelly is probably guilty of multiple felonies with minors, let's see if this documentary is the same, if it is I'm happy to change my mind

There’s a lot of parallels between Kelly’s case and that of MJ. What makes you believe Kelly is guilty and Michael not? Are you aware that a lot of Kelly’s alleged victims have come out and stated that they are in a consensual relationship with the singer and are free to come and go as they please? What makes you believe one word of mouth allegation over another? Kelly was acquitted of the charges against him too.. wasn’t he?....

It’s worth adding that I believe all the allegations against Kelly, and it’s clear his victims are still in the throes of the grooming process and all rationality has been put on pause while he subjects them to domination and abuse, so the extent they don’t even realise it’s happening. Do you not think the same could be said for Michael’s victims and those who are now coming forward after defending him in the past? Do you realise how powerful the grooming process is? Is it just the fact these abused boys happened to come from unfortunate backgrounds that makes you disbelieve their stories?

Most victims don’t even report when they’ve been raped, such is the trauma and embarrassment and shame, coupled with being up against a system that is designed to go against you, while you have to sit there and have every part of your body dissected and analysed, and passed around to the jury to scrutinise. Nobody, and I mean nobody, in their right mind would come out and announce to the world that they had been abused and violated in the most horrendous of ways, let alone when they were a child. It’s also worth noting it’s even rarer that male victims come forward, let alone heterosexual males who have been abused by another male. I think you need to ask yourself why you think so badly of these people that they would lie and make this up for a quick buck (added that they’re not getting paid for the documentary)

However I can’t blame them for wanting to be compensated for their trauma in some way, shape or form. Sure what was $23m to him anyway? Even Michael himself, billionaire humble bragger, said it was “very very small”.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

There’s a lot of parallels between Kelly’s case and that of MJ. What makes you believe Kelly is guilty and Michael not? Are you aware that a lot of Kelly’s alleged victims have come out and stated that they are in a consensual relationship with the singer and are free to come and go as they please? What makes you believe one word of mouth allegation over another? Kelly was acquitted of the charges against him too.. wasn’t he?....

Yep, child pornography charges, his defensive was that it wasn’t him in the video. But it’s not the child porn, it’s the relationships with minors that seemed to me from the documentary to be true. You have someone claiming they falsified Aliyah’s age on the wedding cert when she was 15 for example.

You might be right, R Kelly might be completely innocent and refrains from consensual relationships before they come of age. Wasn’t the impression I got but I definitely believed some of the accusers. I know a lot more about Michael Jackson’s 2 trials than I do about Robert Kelly though and in those cases I don’t believe the accusers primarily because of the circumstances around them mainly being motivations of the parents, timing of them having happened (after the FBI are already looking at him?) and events after both trials.

I’m surprised that people find Chandler and Arviso’s accusations as truthful and if somebody wants to give me more context on Kelly’s accusers and why I am naïve in believing them I’m open to you telling me. I accept the documentary is likely biased but in both cases I can just go with what I know about both and my feeling is Kelly is likely guilty and Michael could be but the obviously false Chandler and Arviso accusations make it harder to believe unless some credible case comes forward

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

You might be right, R Kelly might be completely innocent

To be fair, I never said this. And I never said you were naive for believing Kelly’s victims. I think it’s clear to all that he’s a perverted POS.
I was just turning the situation on it’s head for a moment and wondering why you were willing to believe one documentary over another, especially when there are many parallels between the two cases.
Just giving you some food for thought, is all.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

To be fair, I never said this. And I never said you were naive for believing Kelly’s victims. I think it’s clear to all that he’s a perverted POS.
I was just turning the situation on it’s head for a moment and wondering why you were willing to believe one documentary over another, especially when there are many parallels between the two cases.
Just giving you some food for thought, is all.

No sorry I know you didn't I mean you might be right that I did the same thing and made an opinion just in a documentary

I haven't seen the MJ one yet in fairness and I've said multiple times I'm open to changing my mind.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

[Nobody, and I mean nobody, in their right mind would come out and announce to the world that they had been abused and violated in the most horrendous of ways, let alone when they were a child.

Indeed.

The majority of false child sex abuse allegations originate from a parent.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Indeed.

The majority of false child sex abuse allegations originate from a parent.

I think I read something along those lines before yes, usually a parent to parent allegation however, and usually as a consequence of a custody dispute. Unless I’ve taken your post up wrong.

Incidentally, false allegations on the whole are incredibly rare (I think between 2-9%) and it’s a fact that you are more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse than be falsely accused of sexual abuse.

joeguevara

I haven’t watched the film and only know what has been posted but is there incontrovertible evidence that substantiate their allegations. Something very off seeing as a deceased person nor his estate can sue for defamation.

It could cause severe financial damages for his kids if because of this film MJ revenue could diminish significantly. Now if there is corroborating evidence fair play but if not I think it is unjust. Why wait 20 years? Why not take a case when his estate was being settled and before distribution.

Are the dead fair game to throw mud at without being able to defend themselves. If it was my family and 20 years after they died someone decided to release anfilm making allegations and there is nothing I could do, then it would be sickening.

Now if they can back it up then the truth should be heard.

AllForIt

10 Years after his death, not 20.

False posthumous allegations of child sex abuse are becoming more common. Just look at the Westminster scandal, where they were proven to be untrue, where the guy who accused multiple 80's politicians of being part of a paedo ring, and one who is still alive where it ruined his life, is now in prison for those false allegations.

Edit: oh the amount of ppl who so wanted to believe it to be true.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

I think I read something along those lines before yes, usually a parent to parent allegation however, and usually as a consequence of a custody dispute. Unless I’ve taken your post up wrong.

Prevalent in custody and divorce cases but by no means exclusive to them.

Incidentally in Janet Arvizo's divorce proceedings against her ex husband, she claimed he sexual abused their daughter.

retro:electro wrote: »

Incidentally, false allegations on the whole are incredibly rare (I think between 2-9%)

That figure fluctuates widely, depending on the decade and country.

But there are studies which suggest up to 1 in 10 are indeed fake.

retro:electro wrote: »

it’s a fact that you are more likely to be a victim of sexual abuse than be falsely accused of sexual abuse.

I think I know what you mean there.

The problem is though, if you are falsely accused and then completely exonerated, the stench of the allegations can never really be washed clean from that person.

This Thread = Proof

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

The problem is though, if you are falsely accused and then completely exonerated, the stench of the allegations can never really be washed clean from that person.

This Thread = Proof

An acquittal means nothing more than not enough evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean a crime didn’t occur and it does not mean the allegations were false. Surely you know that? Like I said to you earlier, if you have proof those allegations were false then you need to compile that proof in a document and forward it on to those who matter.

The content of this thread is proof of why reporting rates of abuse are so low, nothing more and nothing less. And after reading it I can’t say I’d blame them.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

An acquittal means nothing more than not enough evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

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…. 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

This was about a "reasonable doubt", there was no doubt.

retro:electro

Yeah yeah you’ve posted that about a million times now. And proof all the other allegations are false?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah yeah you’ve posted that about a million times now.

I posted it twice. :pac:

I have a feeling you are the sort that believe that all men are guilty of something, even if they haven't been accused.

Good luck with that, I have no interest in engaging anymore.

Potential-Monke

retro:electro wrote: »

An acquittal means nothing more than not enough evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not mean a crime didn’t occur and it does not mean the allegations were false. Surely you know that? Like I said to you earlier, if you have proof those allegations were false then you need to compile that proof in a document and forward it on to those who matter.

An acquittal also doesn't mean that there is some truth to it. It can still be 100% false. Just like it can be 100% true. Or a bit of both. But as you said, not enough to get a prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There was reasonable doubt, there will always be reasonable doubt imo unless there is some physical evidence, such as semen, pictures, videos or in some cases written messages (physical or digital).

From my experience, most sexual cases are won or lost on the physical evidence. You can't even count on someones memory anymore, so their word is literally just a series of letters that either line up, or not, with the physical evidence. That's why there will never be a prosecution in a 'he said, she said' case.

It does seem a bit suss that this is coming out after he is dead, but should that matter? Just because he's dead doesn't mean his victims can come out now. Yeah, makes it harder to prove he didn't, but from what I can recall he wouldn't have been mentally sound to be able to defend himself/give evidence.

retro:electro

Potential-Monke wrote: »

An acquittal also doesn't mean that there is some truth to it. It can still be 100% false. Just like it can be 100% true.

Yes but usually you have to prove an allegation was false in order to confidently state it as such.