Micky Jackson in trouble again

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not to mention the book, made by paedophiles, which Jackson had personally inscribed with how he wanted this childhood for his own children, which apparently features naked boys (in 90% of the images) posed spread-eagle where you can literally see everything. It sounds sickening and not something a normal person with no sexual interest in children would have at all

retro:electro wrote: »

... so he says while trying to infer on his behalf what was going on in his mind.
Do you even realise the irony of what you’re coming out with?

And just so we’re clear- it’s inappropriate for an adult to share a bed with any minor, girl or boy, that isn’t a sibling or a relative in some way. Never mind make a habit out of it and think it’s beautiful. Scary that even needs to be said but here we are.

fin12 wrote: »

You do realise that the majority of children who are sexually abused it’s from a family member.

fin12 wrote: »

My point is to say that a child should only sleep in a bed with a relative, does not mean they are save as they are more likely to be abused by a family member than anyone else.

retro:electro wrote: »

My point is there’s nothing perverted about two siblings sharing a bed out of necessity. I’m not saying abuse cannot happen as a result of this but in and of itself it’s not perverse. It is perverse when a grown man living in a mansion would prefer to share a bed with a young boy when there’s a host of other bedrooms he could have stayed in, should he not want to be subject to allegations of impropriety.
Seriously, we all know a child is more likely to be abused by someone known to them. That’s not news.

fin12 wrote: »

He was asexual. He just got married to Lisa Marie as he was obsessed with her father and to appear to society as normal.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If they don't exist then why did the prosecution apply to introduce them into evidence with the other stuff? And why did Jackson's team acknowledge that they existed in their motion to have them disallowed, which I presume is what happened as they don't appear to have been mentioned during the trial? They still exist though

Besides all the material shown above the prosecution’s January 18, 2005 motion also mentions two photographs allegedly found in the 1993 search. One is described as “a photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude [3]” (Jonathan Spence was one of Jackson’s young friends in the 1980s), the other is described as “a photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella; wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down [3]”.

These claims, and especially the claim about the alleged Spence photo, are sometimes used on various Internet forums and comment sections against Jackson as some major, bombshell evidence of his guilt, but in reality the prosecution never proved even the existence of these alleged photos, let alone introducing them to Court and giving the defense a chance to cross-examine them.

As you have seen above the parties can claim many things in motions but they are not always true or can be one-sidedly twisted and whatever claim they make they need to prove them in Court to be accepted as facts. Prosecution motions are just that: often biased, never proven, never cross-examined claims, theories and opinions by one of the parties. In actuality, in this case prosecution motions often included claims which were twisted or even turned out to be totally untrue in Court – some even refuted by the prosecution’s own witnesses.

This prosecution claimed these photos in this one motion but when they finally got to introduce their 1993 findings to the Court, after the Judge ruled on the admissibility of “prior bad acts” evidence in March 2005, they only introduced the art books found in the 1993 search that we have discussed above. After this one motion they never even mentioned these alleged photos again either in Court or in other motions requesting the introduction of items found in 1993. There is no evidence of their existence.

Please also consider that right after the raid of Jackson’s homes in 1993 the police stated that “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing” [2]. Moreover, when the prosecution tried to introduce testimony about Jonathan Spence on March 28, 2005, the Judge turned it down exactly because all the prosecution could offer regarding him were testimonies about the supposed “grooming” of Spence (at least that is how the prosecution called the fact that Jackson bought him gifts – as he did to almost everyone, young and old, he ever was friends with) [37]. That was all the evidence they could offer to the Court about Spence and that is why he was not allowed by the Judge to be introduced to the Court as one of Jackson’s alleged victims. A nude photo of Spence found in Jackson’s possession would have been just what the prosecution needed to be able to point to more than just “grooming” and be able to introduce him as an alleged victim, but they never produced any such photo. One has to wonder if this is indeed the bombshell evidence that it was turned into in Internet folklore why was it not used in Court by the prosecution to get Spence introduced as an alleged victim? Or at the very least why did not the prosecution fight tooth and nail to have it introduced to Court?
When Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau was asked about that alleged photo in a recent podcast by King Jordan Radio he said he had never even seen any such photo, so it apparently was never even shown to the defense – as you are obliged to do with any evidence that you attempt to introduce to Court as a prosecution.

For the record, Jonathan Spence never claimed any wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour by Jackson and he and his family still talk fondly of the entertainer.

Keep in mind that this prosecution was very zealous against Michael Jackson, throwing “everything but the kitchen sink” at him, but the only material “evidence” they could come up with in this case were art photography books, old nudist magazines and legal, heterosexual adult material. They spent days with presenting Jackson’s heterosexual adult magazines to the Court which puzzled the jury because they felt it was irrelevant. That the prosecution was forced to harp on such irrelevant evidence instead of real, damining evidence is a good indication that they did not really have any damining evidence.

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson's team didn't acknowledge that they existed, they asked WTF they were.

It's explained quite well in the link I posted.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For the people that think he's innocent here's a question. If your next door neighbour who was a really good dancer and was good at the old karaoke had a bouncy castle and a slide in his garden (despite having no kids) knocked at your door asking if your five year old son could come over and play before spending the night in the same bed as him would you agree to it? And to sweeten the deal imagine he'd been abused by his father and was now a real oddball with a 'childlike innocence' who wanted to heal the children of the world with his love or some bollocks. I mean who could say no to that offer?

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For the people that think he's innocent here's a question. If your next door neighbour who was a really good dancer and was good at the old karaoke had a bouncy castle and a slide in his garden (despite having no kids) knocked at your door asking if your five year old son could come over and play before spending the night in the same bed as him would you agree to it? And to sweeten the deal imagine he'd been abused by his father and was now a real oddball with a 'childlike innocence' who wanted to heal the children of the world with his love or some bollocks. I mean who could say no to that offer?