Micky Jackson in trouble again

ToBeFrank123

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Right so sure you keep believing it's all fiction.

Galwayguy. If Boggles and myself put together a 4 hour documentary about you only showing your negative side and making serious allegations against you, without your right to reply, how do you think you would come out looking?

Not very good I'd imagine!

A 4 hour negative documentary about someone - you think anyone is going to come out looking good from that? Jesus himself wouldn't.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Nope. Not true. There is evidence. Google the names of the editors and contributors. You can find info on them that isnt "fringe blogs".

It was you that linked to the fringe blog.

If you have a credible link I will gladly take a look.

sligeach

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Yes it’s amazing how well it went under the radar

Pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years

No, it's not "pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years". Proof?

blanch152

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Cliff had one allegation as far as I know?

Wacko J has had allegations from 1980 until his sordid death in 2009. Multiple boys. Awful stuff.

As a quick little education for you. Google Omer Bhatti.

PS don’t patronise me. I could school you on this stuff

What do you think of David Bowie, Bill Wyman, George Michael, Elvis Presley, R. Kelly et al?

Jerry Lee Lewis? Marvin Gaye?

Maybe it is just older men who have sex with boys that you have a problem with, rather than older men who have sex with girls?

Then again, do you read the poetry of Oscar Wilde or the works of Lewis Carroll? The art of Carvaggio interest you?

There are countless examples throughout history and up until now.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

You seem very invested in denying any wrongdoing by Jackson despite not even being a fan.

Show me actual evidence of wrong doing and I'll personally dig up his bones and throw them in jail.

sligeach

sligeach wrote: »

No, it's not "pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years". Proof?

Did you not see the other replies to this when I queried it? I think there's something called "the internet". Apparently we're supposed to go there and we'll find everything that's required to back up these sweeping statements.
I'd take a National Enquirer article at this stage.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

It was you that linked to the fringe blog.

If you have a credible link I will gladly take a look.

I didn't know a blog about books was a fringe blog. I just googled and found a page with all the information, including court records.

Oh well. Here is an article in the New York times featuring The editor of the books, martin swithinbank, being charged with abusing boys and naming him as a nambla member

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/13/nyregion/manhattan-doctor-is-charged-in-li-inquiry-on-a-sex-group.html

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I didn't know a blog about books was a fringe blog. I just googled and found a page with all the information, including court records.

Oh well. Here is an article in the New York times featuring The editor of the books, martin swithinbank, being charged with abusing boys and naming him as a nambla member

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/13/nyregion/manhattan-doctor-is-charged-in-li-inquiry-on-a-sex-group.html

Where does it say he edited the book?

Galwayguy35

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Galwayguy. If Boggles and myself put together a 4 hour documentary about you only showing your negative side and making serious allegations against you, without your right to reply, how do you think you would come out looking?

Not very good I'd imagine!

A 4 hour negative documentary about someone - you think anyone is going to come out looking good from that? Jesus himself wouldn't.

He was a guy who slept with kids, had photos of children and was a paedophile who is dead 10 years so it's a bit hard to not to show it in anything other than a negative.

ToBeFrank123

sligeach wrote: »

No, it's not "pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years". Proof?

Proof? HAHA.
Good luck with that!

ToBeFrank123

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

He was a guy who slept with kids, had photos of children and was a paedophile who is dead 10 years so it's a bit hard to not to show it in anything other than a negative.

Sorry, I must have missed the courtcase where he was tried and convicted of being a paedophile.

oh right I forgot, court trials mean little or nothing. Its documentaries where witnesses are not subjected to the least bit of cross examination where people are tried and found guilty.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Where does it say he edited the book?

Does it have to list all his published works in an article about a crime? That is the person who edited the book. A convicted pedophile and nambla member. The other person who edited the book is also a convicted pedophile but knock yourself out denying it. Or just go back to the "but he had thousands of books" defence. Whatever.

Bunny Colvin

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Does it have to list all his published works in an article about a crime? That is the person who edited the book. A convicted pedophile and nambla member. The other person who edited the book is also a convicted pedophile but knock yourself out denying it. Or just go back to the "but he had thousands of books" defence. Whatever.

North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes? Sick bastard

Balmed Out

Boggles wrote: »

Show me actual evidence of wrong doing and I'll personally dig up his bones and throw them in jail.

What evidence is there normally in cases like this? In the case of a groomed child its usually one persons word against another, they look for other victims and circumstantial evidence. Jackson has had the money to pay off and hire the best lawyers, admits to sharing a bed with multiple young boys and has multiple accusers. It doesn't look good though not a certainty.

If an average joe loved the company of kids invited families for sleep overs and encouraged a young child to share his bed unsupervised and it came to public knowledge without any accusations made it most people would presume guilt. Throw in multiple accusations and itd be jail. Jacksons millions muddy the water by providing an alternative motive for the accusations but still....

The 'documentary' was drivel but who here if Jackson was alive today would allow their children in his care while they used the bathroom not to mind any longer.

fryup

Safechuck l'm convinced by ..but Robson i'm not too sure of, something definitely off about him

crocodile tears

goat2

Are they going to sue, and since MJ is dead, and his assets distributed and spent on rearing his family, who do the sue,

martingriff

goat2 wrote: »

Are they going to sue, and since MJ is dead, and his assets distributed and spent on rearing his family, who do the sue,

Have done twice first Jackson was thrown out. Apealled and again thrown out. Then sued the family and his security. Stuff of the thread in the TC General forum. That has been thrown out and they could be appealing that

Beechwoodspark

sligeach wrote: »

No, it's not "pretty much accepted that he was abused by MJ for years". Proof?

Look it up yourselves. Everything I assert is easily confirmed online.

fryup

fryup wrote: »

Safechuck i'm convenienced by ..but Robson i'm not too sure of, something definitely off about him

crocodile tears

I don't get this argument though. It's well documented that he was 'close' to both boys, but he definitely abused one and not the other? Do you think the sleepovers with Robson were innocent?

blanch152

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Look it up yourselves. Everything I assert is easily confirmed online.

You keep dishing it out to other posters, but you ignore the difficult questions that show up an obsession with Micheal Jackson.

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you think of David Bowie, Bill Wyman, George Michael, Elvis Presley, R. Kelly et al?

Jerry Lee Lewis? Marvin Gaye?

Maybe it is just older men who have sex with boys that you have a problem with, rather than older men who have sex with girls?

Then again, do you read the poetry of Oscar Wilde or the works of Lewis Carroll? The art of Carvaggio interest you?

There are countless examples throughout history and up until now.

Stacksofwacks

martingriff wrote: »

Have done twice first Jackson was thrown out. Apealled and again thrown out. Then sued the family and his security. Stuff of the thread in the TC General forum. That has been thrown out and they could be appealing that

These cases are very hard to prove or litigate, you would want a mass of people coming out and speaking..not to mention the power and wealth Jackson had at his disposal to fight back his accusers and buy them off etc..

sligeach

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Look it up yourselves. Everything I assert is easily confirmed online.

You are full of crap. That's twice now you've done that to my question. Provide a link please, or you're a liar.

sligeach

https://twitter.com/MJJCommunity/status/1104071525643227136

sabat

The level of denial amongst his fanboys is a truly fascinating phenomenon. I know this type of comment isn't really allowed on boards and I'll probably get a card for saying it, but they are suffering from a mental illness, utterly bewildered by the manipulations of the mass media programming that created MJ's public persona in the first place. In their minds he was almost a god with supernatural powers that render the norms of human behaviour irrelevant to any discussion.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^

no, i'm not a MJ fan by any means but in fairness he's not here to defend himself...i'm just not convinced by these two guys there's definetley something off about them esp Robson...he's changed his story many times over the years

i'm just saying people shouldn't be too quick to come to a conclusion about this

*remember Cliff Richard, William Roche, Michael le Vell

android1

People have always thought Michael Jackson was just a big kid, denied a childhood & his prominent association with them was a reflection of that. And I see the logic in this thinking. So why is it always little boys and never little girls that have made these accusations?

8-10

sabat wrote: »

The level of denial amongst his fanboys is a truly fascinating phenomenon. I know this type of comment isn't really allowed on boards and I'll probably get a card for saying it, but they are suffering from a mental illness, utterly bewildered by the manipulations of the mass media programming that created MJ's public persona in the first place. In their minds he was almost a god with supernatural powers that render the norms of human behaviour irrelevant to any discussion.

The mass media manipulated everybody into thinking he was guilty in 2005. Go back and read the tabloids from the time it was manic obsession with him, he sold a lot of papers. You had people in England wildly speculating about a trial that they weren't in a the room for.

2005 was trail by media and many were foaming at the mouth when the not guilty verdicts came out

The whole thing was theatre

KikiLaRue

8-10 wrote: »

The mass media manipulated everybody into thinking he was guilty in 2005. Go back and read the tabloids from the time it was manic obsession with him, he sold a lot of papers. You had people in England wildly speculating about a trial that they weren't in a the room for.

2005 was trail by media and many were foaming at the mouth when the not guilty verdicts came out

The whole thing was theatre

Do you think there is any possibility that MJs obviously weird relationship with young boys ever extended to molestation?

8-10

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Do you think there is any possibility that MJs obviously weird relationship with young boys ever extended to molestation?

Yes I do

justincasey

Mj clearly groomed these kids and there familys. Piece of **** got away with it..