Micky Jackson in trouble again

ceadaoin. wrote: »

AND THE FACT THAT SEVERAL BOYS CLAIM THEY WERE ABUSED!! You're happy to paint them all as opportunistic liars, I'm not.

2 Very simple questions.

Why would you go to a civil lawyer ($$$) before a criminal one if you are claiming you were molested?

Do you think he should have been found guilty in 2005?

professore wrote: »

This isn't a court of law.

On the balance of probabilities the man, if you could call him that, was a rampant paedophile. He clearly could have had as much sex or relationships with adult men or women that he wanted yet he slept with young boys instead. Come on man ... wake up!

If he was such a rampant paedophile, why didn’t he abuse his own children

He wasn’t interested in sex therefore that’s all he did was sleep.

fin12 wrote: »

If he was such a rampant paedophile, why didn’t he abuse his own children

He wasn’t interested in sex therefore that’s all he did was sleep.

Because paedos don’t abuse every child in sight.
Just like rapists don’t rape every woman in sight.
Weird defence for him tbh.. “he didn’t even abuse his kids so he’s clearly not one”
Not interested in sex? Care to explain his mass collection of pornography?

AllForIt wrote: »

It was revealed he had adult porn on his computer. So what? You'd think that would be a positive in his defense since it was adult porn but your using it as circumstantial evidence to support your view where in fact it goes against your view.

No I’m not. I’m using it to refute allegations he was disinterested in sex.

fin12 wrote: »

That’s not my defense for saying he wasn’t a paedophile, I’m asking why didn’t he as people claim here he was such a rampant paedophile?

The alleged collection of pornography, Could have belonged to anyone, staff, members of his family.

Oh give over!! Lol. “That money was just resting in my account” :pac:

I’ve never described him as a rampant paedophile. I believe he was more opportunistic and sought out children with vulnerabilities. Plenty of paedophiles have families and children of their own who they never touch. It’s nothing to applaud.

8-10 wrote: »

Of course you'd stop it. It's very inappropriate behaviour. No reasonable parent would allow it, would you allow your kids to do it?

Why is it very inappropriate?

twill wrote: »

No, because boys and men have described how he abused them. Jackson's employees described witnessing abuse. Because his behaviour is consistent with that of other paedophiles. Because he used intimidation to threaten the families of the abused boys and others who were keeping his secrets. Because he bankrupted his estate in payoffs to boys he abused and others who knew too much. Because the majority of the witness accounts corroborate each other and are consistent with known facts. Because every single investigator believed him guilty, and they had nothing to gain from the prosecution.


Oh, but he wasn't a paedophile, because he had power, and we must protect powerful people at all costs. Right?

Full House of false!

Congrats. :pac:

fin12 wrote: »

That’s not my defense for saying he wasn’t a paedophile, I’m asking why didn’t he as people claim here he was such a rampant paedophile?

The alleged collection of pornography, Could have belonged to anyone, staff, members of his family.

And they left their pornography, all over his private quarters, including his bedroom and bathroom? Uh huh

And there is nothing "alleged" about it. it's on the official police reports. Unless you think the police planted it there? Or maybe it was the kids who did it to to back up their story that it was there and it was used to groom them? Or maybe they were just telling the truth?

retro:electro wrote: »

Oh give over!! Lol. “That money was just resting in my account” :pac:

I’ve never described him as a rampant paedophile. I believe he was more opportunistic and sought out children with vulnerabilities. Plenty of paedophiles have families and children of their own who they never touch. It’s nothing to applaud.

That’s why I said people have claimed here, that not singling out u. Sorry are u trying to imply that I think a paedophile should be applauded because they don’t abuse their own kids?

Just like uve said there is plenty who abuse their own likewise.

retro:electro wrote: »

Nope. I’m not sure what you were trying to imply tbh. It was kind of a moot point.

Read over your reply to me.

Can we agree that some of us think there’s no smoke without fire whilst others have applied their judgement and life experience to think the opposite? Would that be a first for boards?

This is quite an illuminating article on the subject. I like this part especially because I don't want MJ to join the ranks of kiddy fiddlers that seem to populate my back catalogue of favourite songs over the years.




"The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him. The prosecution’s case in 2005 was so absurd Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi described it like this:

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I get that but still not a single bit of proof posted in the entire thread

There has been plenty of proof posted. You just refuse to believe it’s true or dismiss it as being irrelevant or find some other kind of twisted defence for it.

The police found absolutely no proof or evidence. Zero.

If there was no proof or evidence then he wouldn’t have been arrested, let alone charged with a crime and brought to trial. People don’t just arrest people on a hunch, I can’t just rock up to the Garda station and claim someone abused me and have them arrested. There’s a process involved where evidence is gathered; but I’m sure you know this.
The fact he was acquitted is based on there not being enough evidence to prove the allegations, not that the allegations never occurred. His defence team put forward a convincing argument,
but after an acquittal the default conclusion doesn’t assume the victim is a liar. Unless you have proof these men are liars then you should stop assuming them to be so.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The books are photography books. You won't find them in the erotica section of a bookstore. None of the nude or semi nude photos are of sexual nature. This was all pointed in a detailed post last night. The post gives a full breakdown of the photos in the book.

Would you be comfortable having these books in your home?

retro:electro wrote: »

There has been plenty of proof posted. You just refuse to believe it’s true or dismiss it as being irrelevant or find some other kind of twisted defence for it.



If there was no proof or evidence then he wouldn’t have been arrested, let alone charged with a crime and brought to trial. People don’t just arrest people on a hunch, I can’t just rock up to the Garda station and claim someone abused me and have them arrested. There’s a process involved where evidence is gathered; but I’m sure you know this.
The fact he was acquitted is based on there not being enough evidence to prove the allegations, not that the allegations never occurred. His defence team put forward a convincing argument,
but after an acquittal the default conclusion doesn’t assume the victim is a liar. Unless you have proof these men are liars then you should stop assuming them to be so.



Would you be comfortable having these books in your home?

What crime was he charged with?

Actually you can go to the Garda station and make an allegation about someone abusing you and the person can be arrested. What happens if you make an allegation against a person who abused you 20/30/40 years ago what evidence would be there then? This cases happen all the time and the accused is arrested and jailed.

Hoboo wrote: »

He was sleeping with kids. That's not wacko. That's paedo.

I'd argue it's both.