Micky Jackson in trouble again

Ann22

Apologies if this has been posted already. A list of items found in Neverland during the trial.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Jerichoholic

Ann22 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted already. A list of items found in Neverland during the trial.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

That's a lot of images of nude children for an innocent man don't you think?

fryup

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I watched the first four minutes. It was quite incoherent and he dodged a few questions. It's all very well to say "they were slumber parties", as though adult men having slumber parties with little kids is a normal thing that happens all the time....

yes it is weird for an adult man to have slumber parties with children, and MJ was in many ways weird/immature....

....but...that doesn't automatically make him a child abuser now does it??

Ursus Horribilis

Jerichoholic wrote: »

That's a lot of images of nude children for an innocent man don't you think?

I'm sure Jackson's defenders will be along with an explanation any minute now.

KikiLaRue

fryup wrote: »

yes it is weird for an adult man to have slumber parties with children, and MJ was in many ways weird/immature....

....but...that doesn't automatically make him a child abuser now does it??

No, it doesn’t. It does create well-founded suspicion though.

fryup

and well-founded suspicion...doesn't make you automatically guilty either

KikiLaRue

fryup wrote: »

and well-founded suspicion...doesn't make you automatically guilty either

I agree. I can’t say for certain that he’s guilty. But on the balance of probabilities I think he is.

ceadaoin.

fryup wrote: »

and well-founded suspicion...doesn't make you automatically guilty either

The sleepovers aren't the only evidence though are they? It's all the other behaviours and dodgy stuff found by the police, as well as the accusations themselves that lead me to believe he is guilty. Sure his lawyer pretty much admitted Jordy Chandler was telling the truth and that's why they paid. Each factor on its own is creepy and disturbing but him being an abuser really is the most likely outcome when you look at it all together. You have to go through some serious mental gymnastics to make it otherwise

is_that_so

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Well that was MJs strategy even 25 years ago. If the baseline of acceptable behaviour can be shifted to the point where sleeping exclusively with pre-pubescent boys is excused as “well he never had a childhood himself” then the power to both carry on abusing and more importantly, get away with it, is with Michael Jackson.

You were doing just great and should have stopped here.

fryup

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Sure his lawyer pretty much admitted Jordy Chandler was telling the truth and that's why they paid.

no he didn't

hetuzozaho

Apparently his fans have funded an ad campaign on London buses.

Find it hard to get my head around this.

https://twitter.com/itsjoerack/status/1103981359150845953?s=20

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Ann22 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted already. A list of items found in Neverland during the trial.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Jaysus. That's pretty damning evidence right there. Lots and lots of those images are not okay for an adult to possess.

ceadaoin.

fryup wrote: »

no he didn't

One of his lawyers did. I've posted the quote twice or even three times now. Sure what's one more time

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of “If we don’t get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson”[1]

And for good measure, one of the lead investigators on the case

Dworin: “We had served a search warrant to photograph Michael Jackson. Those photographs corroborated the description that the boy gave us regarding Michael Jackson’s genitals.”

Mankiewicz: “The boy was able to describe discolorations of Jackson’s skin?”

Dworin: “Yes.”

Mankiewicz: “On his genitals, accurately.”

Dworin: “Very much so.”

More details about how the description matched reality can be found in the court papers

Yet the Jackson camp trots out the "he said he was circumcised but he wasn't" line as a gotcha. They fail to mention how he correctly identified distinctive marks caused by vitiligo.

Like I said, mental gymnastics

Jerichoholic

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Apparently his fans have funded an ad campaign on London buses.

Find it hard to get my head around this.

https://twitter.com/itsjoerack/status/1103981359150845953?s=20

I would be ashamed to get on that bus.

brooke 2

ceadaoin. wrote: »

All of his animals were abandoned when he left Neverland. Animal rights groups weren't happy about it

And he never contributed anything towards their welfare. :mad:

brooke 2

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I just seen a thread on reddit about that video. Wonder if it is the same day that James spoke of. If true the Cheryl Crow speculation was a bit off

James said that MJ pretended to the server in the shop that he was buying a ring for a woman friend whose finger was about the same size as James's, when, in reality, he was purchasing it for James himself.

Irish Guitarist

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe/111176136/michael-jackson-fans-fund-bus-ads-in-london-proclaiming-his-innocence

Apparently now you're a white supremacist if you believe that a grown man who sleeps with children is a paedophile.

Previously O'Kane has told Vice that he does not regret calling british comic and Leaving Neverland supporter Matt Lucas a "White Supremest Scab (sic)" online, despite having said that people discussing the documentary should refrain from being abusive.

brooke 2

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes, the vehemence of certain posters and others online in their arguments against these two men is..disturbing. it's more than just leaning one way based on the facts out there. You'd think it was personal almost. Weird

Also makes it blindingly clear why the Catholic Church got away with its crimes for so long. Some people refuse to see what is right in front of them. :mad:

fryup

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

nobody wants to see abusers getting away with it

but equally we don't want someone who is innocent to be defamed ..and esp when they're not around anymore to defend themselves

brooke 2

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Apparently his fans have funded an ad campaign on London buses.

Find it hard to get my head around this.

https://twitter.com/itsjoerack/status/1103981359150845953?s=20

I believe there is one also in San Francisco which would lead one to think the Jackson estate is behind it.

Jerichoholic

Those Jackson fans are cult-like brainwashed, they'll never believe it.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^

i'm not a MJ fan, i never cared much for his music

but its as plain as day those guys are lying

sabat

Even putting aside the dubious nature of the pornography and erotica found at his home, it does demonstrate that he wasn't the asexual creature that exists in his fans' heads.

Jean Baudrillard writes about his public persona in 1990's The Transparency of Evil:

"La Cicciolina, as carnal ectoplasm, is here very close to Madonna's artificial nitroglycerine or to Michael Jackson's androgynous and Frankensteinian appeal. All of them are mutants, transvestites, genetically baroque beings whose erotic look conceals their generic lack of specificity. They are all 'gender-benders' - all turncoats of sex.
Consider Michael Jackson for example. Michael Jackson is a solitary mutant, a precursor of a hybridization that is perfect because it is universal - the race to end all races. Today's young people have no problem with a miscegenated society: they already inhabit such a universe, and Michael Jackson foreshadows what they see as an ideal future. Add to this the fact that Michael has had his face lifted, his hair straightened, his skin lightened-in short he has been reconstructed with the greatest attention to detail. This is what makes him such an innocent and pure child - the artificial hermaphrodite of the fable, better able even than Christ to reign over the world and reconcile its contradictions; better than a child-god because he is child-prosthesis, an embryo of all those dreamt-of mutations that will deliver us from race and from sex. "

Jerichoholic

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^

i'm not a MJ fan, i never cared much for his music

but its as plain as day those guys are lying

I liked him when I was younger but I have no doubt at all those two unfortunates were telling the truth.

SoundsRight

fryup wrote: »

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

nobody wants to see abusers getting away with it

but equally we don't want someone who is innocent to be defamed ..and esp when they're not around anymore to defend themselves

Even when he was he he didn't defend himself. Paid off two accusers. That's just two that we know of. Have to wonder where all his money went.

Hannibal_Smith

SoundsRight wrote: »

Even when he was he he didn't defend himself. Paid off two accusers. That's just two that we know of. Have to wonder where all his money went.

He defended himself in court?

He settled one case.

valoren

From 2005.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKPBZHpinLs

"Thought you were dying in two weeks...what happened to that, mutha****a? I been in court for a year and a half and you get stronger every time I see you!" :pac:

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Appearing on Oprah and telling your story in a documentary are 100% less traumatic than going through a criminal trial.

So 0%, not traumatic at all. That's not what Safechuck and Robson have said or how they have acted.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Of course they would have to be cross-examined, and that is only fair, but I strongly believe that in particularly in cases of sexual assault and child abuse that there should be rules/ systems in place to protect alleged victims from overly adversarial defence attorneys.

There is.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

This is an aside from the MJ case but things like what happened in Cork recently where an alleged victim's underwear were held up in court as 'proof' she was up for it just should not be allowed, and it's a disgrace that the judge let it happen.

There is very little known about the case, one small article with no context. On the face of it, it would seem crass but context is always key.

What was unusual or rare about that case was their was actually an eye witness.

I very much doubt a jury acquitted on one piece of evidence. What was alleged was a extremely brutal physical assault and horrendous rape.

But that's another thread and moot to this.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Aside from the cross examination, the media circus would make their lives unbearable. As it is they are getting death threats.

They seem to be doing all right riding the elephant around that circus TBF.

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

There is.

I believe that the current protections in place for victims are inadequate (in Ireland, I don't know enough about the US to comment). I think we could do a much better job in cases of rape at balancing the accused's right to a fair trial with the alleged victim's right to seek justice. I think currently the former supersedes the latter, and we need to have a justice system that works for both.

You may think we already have that, I don't.

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I believe that the current protections in place for victims are inadequate (in Ireland, I don't know enough about the US to comment). I think we could do a much better job in cases of rape at balancing the accused's right to a fair trial with the alleged victim's right to seek justice. I think currently the former supersedes the latter, and we need to have a justice system that works for both.

You may think we already have that, I don't.

Absolutely, I think criminal justice and how it operates should constantly be up for review.

Balance the rights of both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator, justice for me has always been about fairness.

It's exactly why I would never form an opinion on an unashamedly biased 4 hour "documentary" which prides itself on not offering even one solitary counter point.