Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah no. Not conspiring. The two jury members had a book. They are in it for the money. The two liars in the new movie are also in it for the money. They have been trying to get money from Jackson estate for a few years now.

I'd feel more comfortable if even one accuser over the years wasn't looking for money.

No one with money accused him either. The rich child actors not only didn't accuse him but right up to today they defend Jackson.

So breaking it down. Wealthy people don't accuse him & don't want money from him. Poor people accuse him & also want large sums of money. The two liars wanted something like a billion from his estate a few years ago.

I agree 100% with this. Of course I don't know for sure but I don't think he abused anyone and I would believe his "victims" a lot more if they weren't looking for money.

There is not one "victim" out there who isn't looking for money. Says it all doesn't it?

8-10 wrote: »

I'm going to give this documentary a look but I am sceptical I have to say when I heard Wade Robson is in it. Never believed his allegations previously.

I hold the opinion to-date that Jackson was horrifically treated by the media and what can only be described as a witch hunt by Tom Sneddon and money grabbing by opportunistic parents of Gavin Arviso and Jordan Chandler. I don't rule out that he could have committed a crime that I haven't heard of yet the same that I wouldn't rule that out about anyone, so let's see what this documentary has.

The R Kelly doc was really convincing and I'd be confident that he's a criminal, I'm open to changing my mind on Michael Jackson but really hope this isn't another baseless accusation like the ones he faced previously but which fits into the tabloids' moral outrage agenda. It worked with them before when they were convinced of his guilt and sold a lot of papers.

Timing of course is very relevant - this "documentary" put together in the wake of the #metoo movement so Wade Robson & co can make as much cash as they can.

professore wrote: »

The cognitive dissonance on this thread is alarming.

Isn’t it? At best he is a creep who admits sleeping with young boys is “a beautiful thing”, and these young boys have gone on in later years to believe they were taken advantage of and tossed once puberty hit, and at worst he’s a serial predator, groomer and molestor. Nothing worth defending there in my book.

Again if it was Martin down the road who admitted to sleeping beside boys because it’s “beautiful” would we have the serial defence of him like it’s portrayed here.. would we hell.

Here is a summary of some unchallenged testimony in the MJ case:

1. Michael Jackson shared a bed with pre-teen Bret Barnes for more than 460 nights over a 2 year period.
2. Michael Jackson begged June Chandler for more than 30 minutes to allow him to sleep with her son
3. Michael Jackson had huge quantities of porn strewn about his home ready for boys to “discover”
4. Michael Jackson called up compliant mothers asking them to deliver young boys to his bedroom, often in the middle of the night.
(This is all publicly available info of the court proceedings)

None of these things are up for debate and were not contested in trial by the defense.
The reason he was acquitted was down to the defence’s convincing argument about the possible fraudulent activity of the Arvizo family. The facts are still the facts however, and their alleged greed is not a defence against the facts that he had an unhealthy interest in young boys.
Why would you call someone in the middle of the night to deliver a young boy to your bedroom? Why would you defend someone who made things like this a repeated pattern of behaviour?

retro:electro wrote: »

Please god I never get to a stage in my life where I’m posting online in fervent support of someone I admit has the hallmarks of a sexual predator.
Grim.

TBH I don't think you are in any danger of being capable of looking at anything objectively.

retro:electro wrote: »

You brought out the winky face. Well that’s me told.

;)

Told Twice!

And how exactly does that Tweet contradict my point? (A point proven in court and supported by his sister’s testimony)

retro:electro wrote: »

Here is a summary of some unchallenged testimony in the MJ case:

1. Michael Jackson shared a bed with pre-teen Bret Barnes for more than 460 nights over a 2 year period.
2. Michael Jackson begged June Chandler for more than 30 minutes to allow him to sleep with her son
3. Michael Jackson had huge quantities of porn strewn about his home ready for boys to “discover”
4. Michael Jackson called up compliant mothers asking them to deliver young boys to his bedroom, often in the middle of the night.
(This is all publicly available info of the court proceedings)

None of these things are up for debate and were not contested in trial by the defense.
The reason he was acquitted was down to the defence’s convincing argument about the possible fraudulent activity of the Arvizo family. The facts are still the facts however, and their alleged greed is not a defence against the facts that he had an unhealthy interest in young boys.
Why would you call someone in the middle of the night to deliver a young boy to your bedroom? Why would you defend someone who made things like this a repeated pattern of behaviour?

Can you provide links to support this as I don't believe all of that.

Especially #3 - I believe he had porn (straight porn) but not necessary out for boys to "discover". Also if you think about it if he was a child in a mans body and acted sometimes like a 12 year old boy, maybe he did look at "boobies" with another boy - again this is very weird but it does not make him a rapist.

#4 I'm not so sure about, please provide links

#1 yeah so what? doesn't make him a rapist - Bret Barnes continues to support Michael Jackson

Again there is zero evidence out there that Michael Jackson was a paedophile - just several money-grabbing mentally unhinged men. Yes his behaviour was weird, not normal, uncomfortable etc. but that doesn't make him a sexual predator.

8-10 wrote: »

I wasn't the person to say that it contradicted anything, are you confusing me with another poster?

What was the point in posting it so?

retro:electro wrote: »

What was the point in posting it so?

That's twice I've posted a question to you without a response, not sure why you're being so defensive at me, but I'll do you the same disservice in the answers to your own questions if that's alright with you.

Any documentary I've ever watched about John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer contained interviews with both victims families AND people that knew or were related to the killers, offering various different viewpoints. It's beyond me why the Director thought keeping just to the accusers and their families could lead to being called a balanced documentary.

innuendo141 wrote: »

Any documentary I've ever watched about John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer contained interviews with both victims families AND people that knew or were related to the killers, offering various different viewpoints. It's beyond me why the Director thought keeping just to the accusers and their families could lead to being called a balanced documentary.

I'm sorry but anyone with Wade Robson's history and suing an estate for $1.6Bn and defending his accused rapist under oath lacks all credibility.

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah I plucked them out of thin air for the craic.
I’m not going to weed through an 800 page court document for you, you know where Google is and you know where you can find them.

Yeah so like I thought - complete bollox.