Micky Jackson in trouble again

8-10 wrote: »

Depends, is the neighbour well off and am I opportunistic and money grabbing with a history of making my kids lie for me to support false sexual assault allegations for monetary gain?

If so....yeah, offer sounds pretty good.

That’s risking real sexual abuse for financial gain.

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?

Doesn't prove he was a child molester. He was under investigation for years and on trial cleared of all charges due to lack of evidence.

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Also don’t forget he was a big drug user for decades but kept that under wraps too. A devious and deviant character.

He had an addiction and you can blame his doctors and the people around him for that, his doctor was administering drugs to him that should only be given to someone when in hospital.

Comparing Jackson with 'a next door neighbor' asking if your child can come for a sleep over doesn't equate. He was one of the most famous people on the planet. I think Jackson was the kind of person for whom the word No didn't apply. If he wanted to have sleep overs with specifically pre-pubescent boys then he was going to have sleep overs with prepubescent boys. From a staff perspective to deny him that might have meant your job. For a courted boy it meant the world that such a superstar, a predator hiding in plain sight, wanted to be their 'friend'. If right-minded parents who saw through the "I'm Petay Pan, chamone" front and prevented it, then there would have been other parents who enabled Jackson into getting what he wanted with the cognitive dissonance that while they knew it was wrong and weird that a grown man wanted to have sleepovers with kids they allowed it so as not to (a) give their son such a crushing disappointment coupled with (b) the idea that if there was any funny business then they could sue the deluded dope for millions. There was that transactional relationship between them all i.e. sure their son was sleeping over but they were minting it with gifts, access and luxuries.

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.

"Two photographs seized in 1993, and we don't know who they are of or why they're there"

That's what the lawyer said. So they seem to be acknowledging that they were in fact seized from Neverland (or the Jackson compound, I can't remember which) in 1993. They aren't suggesting they were planted or anything like that which surely if they were they would mention that. Also, a member of staff claimed that they had previously found a photo matching the description , a Polaroid of a naked boy and was asked to destroy it (which he didn't) before the search even happened or the items were made public.

Anyway, your point was they don't exist but clearly they do.

Boggles wrote: »

It was pretrial, nothing had been handed over.

He goes on to demand a



Which means all evidence has to be handed over and tested, among other things.



Mesereau was lead council for the defense.



How can they suggest something was planted that doesn't exist or they have at least ?



Link?



If they clearly existed they would have been entered as evidence in the Trial, they weren't.

If the trial judge allowed "girlie mags", etc entered as evidence then he was as sure as hell going to allow 2 Polaroid pictures depicting nude children in a trial about sexual abuse.

They didn't exist, and that's why you had the Prosecution Lawyer parading around with a copy of 'Jugs over 50' in front of a bemused jury and court room.

It was beyond farce.

Ok so the prosecution entered imaginary evidence on their court filings? Like what would even be the point of that if they didn't have them in their possession?

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Still no one has answered the question of whether they'd let their son sleep in the same bed as a grown man.

No. But I don't see how that is relevant?

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Still no one has answered the question of whether they'd let their son sleep in the same bed as a grown man.

I did, I suggested a scenario where I could see it be allowed to happen

randd1 wrote: »

How the **** can anyone not think this utter freak was a sick paedophile?

This is a man who has the faculties to organise and choreography huge groups of people, write or co-write numerous songs, give interviews occasionally, and get married, yet not have the faculties to know sharing your bed with a child is wrong? Are people nuts.

But he was a “child in a man’s body” :rolleyes:
He was extremely hyper aware to the point his whole house was monitored and rooms alarmed. There wasn’t a thing going on around him that he didn’t have control over. I was never a huge fan of his music but I can appreciate his lyrical talent, and that isn’t born out of a stunted mind. He was extremely shrewd and manipulative and was smarter than leaving a technological trail of child sex abuse images on a computer that can be traced back to him. And not to be crude but it’s not as if he actually needed it, when he was frequently assisted with the real thing on what seems to be a nightly basis. I’ve no doubt in my mind that he found pleasure by just being in bed beside boys, I’m sure it didn’t always have to involve touching or penetration. As someone said earlier is it any wonder the signs of grooming are often missed, when the most obvious and elaborate case the world has ever known is still being defended and justified.

professore wrote: »

Every time I believe there is a limit on how utterly gullible people are something like this comes along and blows it out of the water. You get the feeling if there was video footage discovered in the morning of him raping a child they would try to explain that away too. Absolutely astonishing. It's easy to see how something like Nazi Germany happened.

Jackson

---

> Nazi's.

Fook me!

So basically the counter point to absolutely no evidence.

Is, 'look at the Freak he must be guilty'.

How very scientific. :rolleyes:

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea, I could speculate if you want.

But the more pertinent question is why were they not entered into evidence?

What do you think?

also if you could provide a link for this please.

..

Leroy Thomas, one of the fired “Hayvenhurst Five” security guards, was interviewed by Diane Dimond for Hard Copy on November 23, 1993 following that raid on the Jackson family home. According to Thomas, who worked for the Jacksons from 1987 to 1993, Jackson called him and directed him to retrieve and then destroy a picture of nude young boy that was hidden in his locked bathroom. Thomas described the photo as being a “side view of a totally naked prepubescent blond-haired boy with both his genitals and buttocks showing.”

Thomas said he was instructed by Jackson to destroy the photo, but as it was a Polaroid all he could do was “rip the back off of the picture.”