Micky Jackson in trouble again

sligeach

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Jackson said in the Bashir interview that they weren't allowed to talk about It. Are you sure theres not NDA? Why would Jackson pay $20m and leave Vhandler being able to talk about It?

Jordan Chandler I believe is allowed testify in court. He refused to do so in 2005. Why? Would you not want to put behind bars the person that molested you? Would you not want to protect other children from Michael, to prevent further abuse? He fled the country to get away from it all.

Michael Jacskon was Innocent - Tom Mesereau talks about how Jordan Chandler Lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSC997_HH0

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-eSC997_HH0

People should also look into Jordan's father and their relationship post 1993. Evan Chandler killed himself a number of months after Michael died, it was a week after This Is It released in the cinemas.

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/chandler-timeline/

What a lovely man. /sarcasm

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Well no, I'm giving my opinion based on actual evidence.

My opinion isn't a fact.



His sister retracted her claim, she was beaten half to death by her loon husband who tried to extort money from Jackson., we have been over this several times.

What other sources?

But again, there is nothing stopping people from speaking out, which has all ready been established.

So you accept that Latoya could be coerced into saying something that isn't true, but not that children could have been groomed into defending Jackson and denying anything happened from a young age?

I think Latoya was telling the truth the first time. And maybe her husband did want money and pushed her into it. Both can be true. If she wanted to be accepted back into the family then she had to retract what she said. They are all a bunch of weirdos and were desperate to protect their cash cow and keep all their secrets hidden. They still are

PokeHerKing

Beechwoodspark wrote:

Jackson’s “defenders†will be sad to learn that RTÉ have joined other broadcasters in taking his rubbish music off their schedules.

The man inspired a generation. His music transcended genres and demographics.

Regardless of any alleged actions, he had more talent than 90% of all current musicians put together.

Go sit on your thumb if you've nothing constructive to add.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Again there is no credible proof of that. Actually there is no proof.

You are getting your information from this site you linked to

https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/1981-nambla-britishpedigree/

Which appear just to be a few weird blogs naming random paedos, all though it is masquerading as some sort of legitimate book depository.



Is the title of the blog.

The person credited with the "research"



:pac:

'Snowfaked' just picks 2 random convicted paedos and claims without any proof they edited the book. It's beyond farcical.

Again just another Bullshít grenade thrown in and let permeate.

:rolleyes:

If you Google the two names together, there is a book published in 1987 which says that the name attached to the books in question was the pseudonym of the child abuser. I don't really want to delve any further because it's all very disgusting and dodgy. You won't accept it. Ok

Also, people involved in child abuse investigations have stated that they often find these books in the homes of paedophiles because it's a legal way to possess naked images of children. Just like naturist magazines, which Jackson also had. But let's just ignore all that.

sligeach

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So you accept that Latoya could be coerced into saying something that isn't true, but not that children could have been groomed into defending Jackson and denying anything happened from a young age?

I think Latoya was telling the truth the first time. And maybe her husband did want money and pushed her into it. Both can be true. If she wanted to be accepted back into the family then she had to retract what she said. They are all a bunch of weirdos and were desperate to protect their cash cow and keep all their secrets hidden. They still are

People need to educate themselves on who earns money from the Michael Jackson Estate. It's his kids and Katherine, his mother as guardian of them gets an allowance I believe. The wider Jackson family don't get a penny. Cue the next piece of BS for me to slap down.

wobatkicker23

If I’m not mistaken the orginal lyrics to ‘ Billie Jean’ referred to MJs paedophilic tendencies.

innuendo141

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

If I’m not mistaken the orginal lyrics to ‘ Billie Jean’ referred to MJs paedophilic tendencies.

I think you are very much mistaken there?

Sheeps

wobatkicker23 wrote: »

If I’m not mistaken the orginal lyrics to ‘ Billie Jean’ referred to MJs paedophilic tendencies.

lol

Beechwoodspark

PokeHerKing wrote: »

The man inspired a generation. His music transcended genres and demographics.

Regardless of any alleged actions, he had more talent than 90% of all current musicians put together.

Go sit on your thumb if you've nothing constructive to add.

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

joe40

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Beechwoodspark wrote:

Jackson’s “defenders†will be sad to learn that RTÉ have joined other broadcasters in taking his rubbish music off their schedules.

The man inspired a generation. His music transcended genres and demographics.

Regardless of any alleged actions, he had more talent than 90% of all current musicians put together.

Go sit on your thumb if you've nothing constructive to add.

Someone asked earlier why people are still defending him, there is your answer.

They like his music...

is_that_so

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

I see so you don't get out very often?

PokeHerKing

Beechwoodspark wrote:

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

You needed to widen your social net...

I'd be hard pressed to find someone I know who doesn't like at least one of MJs songs.

micks_address

is_that_so wrote: »

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

I see so you don't get out very often?

Yeah he has more than a handful of Fan's.. I'd be afraid to leave the house if they were all bat**** crazy

LessOutragePlz

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

Nice sweeping generalisation you've made there. Do you carry your tar and brush with you everywhere you go so you can tar everyone with the same brush in every debate you have?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So you accept that Latoya could be coerced into saying something that isn't true, but not that children could have been groomed into defending Jackson and denying anything happened from a young age?

The "master of deception" was an adult when he testified in 2005.

Are you saying that Jackson had him beaten half to death and forced him to testify?

I don't think that happened.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If you Google the two names together, there is a book published in 1987 which says that the name attached to the books in question was the pseudonym of the child abuser. I don't really want to delve any further because it's all very disgusting and dodgy. You won't accept it. Ok

Of course I will accept it, you don't need to delve any further, throw up the link you found to the book or at least the name of the book?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Also, people involved in child abuse investigations have stated that they often find these books in the homes of paedophiles because it's a legal way to possess naked images of children. Just like naturist magazines, which Jackson also had. But let's just ignore all that.

Which people?

Also these books also frequently appear in Libraries, something Jackson had.

Is the claim they are exclusively for paedos and no other people on the planet possess them except for child fiddlers?

ceadaoin.

sligeach wrote: »

People need to educate themselves on who earns money from the Michael Jackson Estate. It's his kids and Katherine, his mother as guardian of them gets an allowance I believe. The wider Jackson family don't get a penny. Cue the next piece of BS for me to slap down.

Well I was talking about the Latoya thing. He provided very well for his family when he was alive didn't he? Of course they had/have a vested interest in defending him and in protecting the Jackson name and brand. They all make money off it

Galwayguy35

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

That's a twisting of words. What tabloids do to sell papers.
He very much said Jackson never did anything to him, but he supports victims of abuse to have a voice in general.

I twisted nothing, he said he can no longer defend Jackson.

RederthanRed

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

WTF? Sure maybe most of these people thought the same about you

Declaring someone odd or certifiable based on music taste says a lot more about you than the people you're accusing.

You're coming across a bit odd yourself here to be honest.

joe40

There is a world of difference between liking some of his songs and been a fan.
The whole fan thing is a bit childish to be honest.
By all means enjoy the work that musician and artist produce but there is no need to put them on a pedestal.
The hero worship is a bit naff.
Billie jean is probably one of the greatest pop songs ever. I have no problem saying that regardless of how I feel about MJ

PokeHerKing

joe40 wrote:

There is a world of difference between liking some of his songs and been a fan. The whole fan thing is a bit childish to be honest. By all means enjoy the work that musician and artist produce but there is no need to put them on a pedestal. The hero worship is a bit naff. Billie jean is probably one of the greatest pop songs ever. I have no problem saying that regardless of how I feel about MJ

That's just your definition of the word. I'm a fan of MJs talent and music. That doesn't mean I'm sporting a diamond encrusted glove or calling my kid blanket.

I don't have to describe myself as anything other than a fan just because some people take things to extremes.

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

So, Becchwoodspark. What eh, music do you like?

wakka12

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

Hes one of the most successful artists of all time

innuendo141

innuendo141 wrote: »

This poll suggests otherwise. Surprising.

Poll: Will you still listen to Michael Jackson's music following the allegations made against him? https://jrnl.ie/4532107

People hate anything "banned"- so if it's banned, it will be bought.

However, just got a thinking this afternoon (a lot of time on my hands waiting on my dinner to cook )- I'm not an MJ fan at all from a music perspective- never have been.
But what about people who are. I mean, are they going to go off into a room on their own to listen to him now? :P
Scenario:

Your friends are coming over for a visit. You put on a CD as you're getting ready- MJ's greatest hits- doorbell- don't have time to stop the music/change the CD-in comes your friend- "eh, what the fck are you listening to?"
They'll never look at you the same again.

Hannibal_Smith

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

Thats a wind up. There are plenty of odd ball music fans out there :pac:

Beechwoodspark

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Personally, almost all the people I’ve met over the years who say they are Jackson fans have been odd balls and some are downright certifiable

Did you have that Pepsi Cola I recommended you have earlier?

:pac:

joe40

PokeHerKing wrote: »

joe40 wrote:

There is a world of difference between liking some of his songs and been a fan. The whole fan thing is a bit childish to be honest. By all means enjoy the work that musician and artist produce but there is no need to put them on a pedestal. The hero worship is a bit naff. Billie jean is probably one of the greatest pop songs ever. I have no problem saying that regardless of how I feel about MJ

That's just your definition of the word. I'm a fan of MJs talent and music. That doesn't mean I'm sporting a diamond encrusted glove or calling my kid blanket.

I don't have to describe myself as anything other than a fan just because some people take things to extremes.

Well actually that is fair enough, with that definition I could call myself a fan. He was a talented artist and performer.
But I was referring to the fans who are more committed shall we say.
I think you know what I mean.

Years to come:

Seedy backstreet alley, 2nd floor run down building, need password to enter front door.

People seated in a semi-circle- All quiet. About 15 people- male and female, old and young.

First person stands up- "My name is Joe/Mary Bloggs and I listen to Michael Jackson music"

Cue round of applause.

"Thank you Joe/Mary Bloggs" - and so it continues for the other 14 people:p

joe40

Deleted User wrote: »

innuendo141 wrote: »

This poll suggests otherwise. Surprising.

Poll: Will you still listen to Michael Jackson's music following the allegations made against him? https://jrnl.ie/4532107

People hate anything "banned"- so if it's banned, it will be bought.

However, just got a thinking this afternoon (a lot of time on my hands waiting on my dinner to cook )- I'm not an MJ fan at all from a music perspective- never have been.
But what about people who are. I mean, are they going to go off into a room on their own to listen to him now? :P
Scenario:

Your friends are coming over for a visit. You put on a CD as you're getting ready- MJ's greatest hits- doorbell- don't have time to stop the music/change the CD-in comes your friend- "eh, what the fck are you listening to?"
They'll never look at you the same again.

I'm hugely critical of MJ but I could still enjoy his music.
I wouldn't buy anything at this stage and if radio stations don't play his music I have no problem there but I if I had a cd I would still listen to it.
Not sure if that is hypocritical or not, but I think we can separate the art from the artist.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

I'm hugely critical of MJ but I could still enjoy his music.
I wouldn't buy anything at this stage and if radio stations don't play his music I have no problem there but I if I had a cd I would still listen to it.
Not sure if that is hypocritical or not, but I think we can separate the art from the artist.

I don't happen to have an MJ CD in my collection- was never really a fan so that's pretty much the explanation but I'm certainly not going to nail you to a cross for having that view either.

PS- was only joking about the "scenarios" above- AH is "social and fun" so I thought I'd have some fun :P

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You can sue his estate though.

Oh wait, they tried that. The judge threw it out before it went to court. If a judge who has seen all the evidence from both sides, thinks that, its good enough for me.

Was that the case that was dismissed because the statute of limitations had passed? If so, the judge made no ruling in that case.

I have to agree with those who say you are not coming across as impartial as you claim.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Lads honest to god, I'm not even a big MJ fan but that doc was a total hatchet job. I'm not buying it, too many inconsistencies, too many important details omitted.

I found the opposite, I found their stories believably consistent. As in, their stories weren’t identifical, but there were many areas of overlap. Totally identical stories would have been suspicious to me. And the level of unusual detail was what sold me.