Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 06:23PM

AllForIt wrote:

If you heard this online then how can anyone trust what has been written about him, or anything reported to have been thought about him, or anything he's been accused of.

This is the biggest problem with posters here. We've been drip fed tabloid nonsense about Jackson since around 1982 or so. 99% percent of this was pure made up rubbish. Its hard to remove this made up stuff from reality as we've slowly absorbed it over the last 30 years or so.

How many times have we read that he slept in an oxygen chamber or was bleaching his skin to try become a white man?

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 06:27PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This is the biggest problem with posters here. We've been drip fed tabloid nonsense about Jackson since around 1982 or so. 99% percent of this was pure made up rubbish. Its hard to remove this made up stuff from reality as we've slowly absorbed it over the last 30 years or so.

How many times have we read that he slept in an oxygen chamber or was bleaching his skin to try become a white man?

On this thread? Not once I believe. The colour of his skin or how he slept (when he was unassisted by little boys) is irrelevant to me.
Also a pretty rich pontificating lecture coming from someone linking to irrelevant penis conditions and giving us the low down on his neighbour’s knob.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 06:34PM

retro:electro wrote:

In fairness you brought it up.

A poster stated that he would have looked cut to the child while erect. This was stated as fact. All I did was show that not all men "look cut" when erect. This creates reasonable doubt or at least shows that its not automatic fact.

professore · 31-01-2019 06:36PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A poster stated that he would have looked cut to the child while erect. This was stated as fact. All I did was show that not all men "look cut" when erect. This creates reasonable doubt or at least shows that its not automatic fact.

In a case the prosecution would produce evidence whether he had this condition or not. The fact this condition exists would not create reasonable doubt in itself.

As a side note, it's impossible to have sex with this condition if your partner isn't ... ah "aroused". Speaking from personal experience ...

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 06:37PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This creates reasonable doubt.

Okay your honour. Whatever you think.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 06:42PM

professore wrote: »

As a side note, it's impossible to have sex with this condition if your partner isn't ... ah "aroused". Speaking from personal experience ...

Must have been what the friend’s wife was gossiping about

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 06:45PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Okay your honour. Whatever you think.

Well you can't let some state something as fact when no one knows if it is or not. This is how fake news gets started.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 06:46PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Well you can't let some state something as fact when no one knows if it is or not. This is how fake news gets started.

Yeah so better to refute it with absolute irrelevant waffle about penis conditions instead. That’ll set things straight.

ceadaoin. · 31-01-2019 06:49PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Well you can't let some state something as fact when no one knows if it is or not. This is how fake news gets started.

But introducing a medical condition and suggesting Jackson could have it when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is not fake news?

Also, it's common for boys to be circumcised soon after birth in the US so chances are Jackson was too.

Phimosis can cause cancer of the penis if it's not fixed. I know someone who had it (phimosis not cancer) and had the op as an adult, it's not that bad. You should encourage your friends and neighbours to get it sorted!

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 06:54PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah so better to refute it with absolute irrelevant waffle about penis conditions instead. That’ll set things straight.

Now that is a nonsense post if ever there was one.

There is NO setting things straight. The man is dead. The police found no evidence or proof when they searched his house. They couldn't bring charges against him. Any proof they thought they had in the second case wasn't accepted by the jury & they found him not guilty. There is no new evidence or proof & never will be. Breaking things down & stating things as fact doesn't create evidence. Searching the internet for false & misleading fake facts doesn't create evidence. There is no evidence or proof.

Flippyfloppy · 31-01-2019 06:56PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Most men don't get this surgery. Most men don't want any surgeon messing with their bits.

It's all a bit silly really. No one knows if he had this issue with his foreskin & yet we're certain what he would or wouldn't do something about it.

Ya gota love the Internet

Are you joking me?! You’re the one who brought up this condition out of nowhere!

You replied to a post I wrote with a random link to a page about this condition, and I was like ‘annnd your point is?!?’

And now you’ve told us your 52 year old friend and 62 year old neighbour have it too, I’m sure they’d be delighted your discussing their peni on the net!

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 06:57PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Now that is a nonsense post if ever there was one.

There is NO setting things straight. The man is dead. The police found no evidence or proof when they searched his house. They couldn't bring charges against him. Any proof they thought they had in the second case wasn't accepted by the jury & they found him not guilty. There is no new evidence or proof & never will be. Breaking things down & stating things as fact doesn't create evidence. Searching the internet for false & misleading fake facts doesn't create evidence. There is no evidence or proof.

Why are you deflecting? You accused someone of engaging in fake news, with the irony being it was actually you who started a 3 page chat on a penis condition we don’t even know he had.

The rest of your post is just... whatever.

Flippyfloppy · 31-01-2019 07:02PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Now that is a nonsense post if ever there was one.

There is NO setting things straight. The man is dead. The police found no evidence or proof when they searched his house. They couldn't bring charges against him. Any proof they thought they had in the second case wasn't accepted by the jury & they found him not guilty. There is no new evidence or proof & never will be. Breaking things down & stating things as fact doesn't create evidence. Searching the internet for false & misleading fake facts doesn't create evidence. There is no evidence or proof.

That is a nonsense post?? It was the most regular post ever!

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:02PM

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Are you joking me?! You’re the one who brought up this condition out of nowhere!

You replied to a post I wrote with a random link to a page about this condition, and I was like ‘annnd your point is?!?’

And now you’ve told us your 52 year old friend and 62 year old neighbour have it too, I’m sure they’d be delighted your discussing their peni on the net!

But you don't have a problem discussing Jacksons penis on the net? discussing every tiny detail about him & his life real & fake. How is it ok for you but not me?

My point is that not every man looks cut while erect. You didn't know this fact. Rather than explain the simplest thing was to provide a link & you can read it yourself.

There's no point getting uppity about it.

Flippyfloppy · 31-01-2019 07:05PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But you don't have a problem discussing Jacksons penis on the net? discussing every tiny detail about him & his life real & fake. How is it ok for you but not me?

My point is that not every man looks cut while erect. You didn't know this fact. Rather than explain the simplest thing was to provide a link & you can read it yourself.

There's no point getting uppity about it.

I joined in the discussion earlier about the child in the Jackson case being asked to remember and draw Jackson’s penis, and whether it matched.

If you want to discuss your ‘friend’ and neighbors lives and every tiny detail about them go make a thread about them! But you’re not much of a friend or neighbour!

ceadaoin. · 31-01-2019 07:15PM

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

I joined in the discussion earlier about the child in the Jackson case being asked to remember and draw Jackson’s penis, and whether it matched.

If you want to discuss your ‘friend’ and neighbors lives and every tiny detail about them go make a thread about them! But you’re not much of a friend or neighbour!

Jordy Chandler also described Jackson's penis I don't know if this is the same child you are referring to? I think because of the vitiligo it was distinctive. Jackson was photographed by law enforcement and his legal team seemed very concerned about those photos and them making it to a trial. So much so that they pushed for a settlement. (Not the insurance company)

Quote from one of his defence team

“…in our [Jackson’s defence lawyers] perspective, you have to remember that there was a companion criminal investigation case going on by both the District Attorney’s office in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. 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]

Does that sound like they believed Chandler was making up the allegations?

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 07:17PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There is no evidence or proof.

Just because you keep saying this it doesn’t make it true.
There was plenty of evidence and proof. That is why he was charged with the molestation of a minor in 2004. Fact.
He was found not guilty because it was hard to prove molestation occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. And in a case if he said she said, it always was going to be.
But of course, you know all this. So this is pointless. Starting to see why your name is Sleeper now. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:20PM

Flippyfloppy wrote:

If you want to discuss your â€˜friendâ€™ and neighbors lives and every tiny detail about them go make a thread about them! But youâ€™re not much of a friend or neighbour!

Telling me what I can or can't post. Instructing me to start a thread.

You are a mod now too?

Absolutely no point engaging with you with that attitude.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:26PM

retro:electro wrote:

Just because you keep saying this it doesnâ€™t make it true. There was plenty of evidence and proof. That is why he was charged with the molestation of a minor in 2004. Fact. He was found not guilty because it was hard to prove molestation occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. And in a case if he said she said, it always was going to be. But of course, you know all this. So this is pointless. Starting to see why your name is Sleeper now. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

No evidence or proof in 1993. They couldn't charge him then.

Yes he was charged in 2004 but there is a very important fact here. He was found not guilty. The jury heard & saw all of the evidence & found him not guilty..
He was found not guilty because the child & his parents made story up. Their case wasn't believed by the jury.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 07:33PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He was found not guilty because the child & his parents made story up.

Do you have proof of this? Because if you do then you need to get your ass over to the state of California and have that family charged with false accusations and purjury.
And in 1993 the criminal case was dropped because Jackson bought Chandler off. Stop making out like it was a decision of the court.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:35PM

Six members of the jury interviewed. All say he is innocent. Not that there was reasonable doubt but that he was innocent. These were there. They heard & saw the evidence we didn't see. I'm amazed that people think they know more about this case then the jury

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:39PM

http:https://ew.com/tv/2017/07/23/michael-jackson-jury-speaks///
Worth a read too

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 07:39PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Six members of the jury interviewed. All say he is innocent. Not that there was reasonable doubt but that he was innocent. These were there. They heard & saw the evidence we didn't see. I'm amazed that people think they know more about this case then the jury

Yeah, that doesn’t mean they lied and made a story up. It means the prosecution couldn’t prove beyond a doubt a crime occurred. A very nuanced difference but an important one all the same. You should probably stop calling them liars now. Wasn’t it you who warned me about the dangerous of posting lies on boards when there could be litigious people reading?

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:40PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah, that doesn’t mean they lied and made a story up. It means the prosecution couldn’t prove beyond a doubt a crime occurred. A very nuanced difference but an important one all the same. You should probably stop calling them liars now. Wasn’t it you who warned me about the dangerous of posting lies on boards when there could be litigious people reading?

Your comment shows that you didnt watch the video

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:42PM

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4718322/Michael-Jackson-juror-vote-innocent.html

Before the trial commenced, Coccoz said she was prepared to find the world famous singer guilty if the prosecutors presented a credible case.

'For me, it was a real sensitive spot,' she admitted. 'I took it kind of personal in a way that you would never want something like that to happen to your children,' said the mother of three.

'So I really didn’t think or care that he was Michael Jackson. If he was doing these things that he was being accused of, I didn’t feel that I had any problem finding him guilty if that was the case.'

But as proceedings carried on, Coccoz and other members of the jury felt that the family had 'ulterior motives' in prosecuting Jackson, and were looking to exploit the pop star for financial gain.

'There were a lot of moments where you felt... ulterior motives was money,' said Coccoz. 'And it appeared that they were imposing themselves on everyone that they could... There were a lot of moments, really.'

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 07:46PM

And just so we’re all clear on 1993:

Jordan Chandler was interviewed after the settlement by detectives seeking evidence of child molestation, but "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview." A Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded on May 2, 1994, without indicting Jackson, while a Los Angeles County grand jury continued to investigate the sexual abuse allegations. After which time the Chandlers stopped co-operating with the criminal investigation around July 6, 1994.The police never pressed criminal charges citing a lack of evidence without Jordan's testimony, the state closed its investigation on September 22, 1994.

They had nothing without Chandler’s statement and couldn’t commit to an investigation where the plaintiff wasn’t willing to cooperate. That’ll have something to do with being intimidated into silence by $23m big ones.

Sleeper12 · 31-01-2019 07:54PM

retro:electro wrote:

They had nothing without Chandlerâ€™s statement and couldnâ€™t commit to an investigation where the plaintiff wasnâ€™t willing to cooperate. Thatâ€™ll have something to do with being intimidated into silence by $23m big ones.

Yes we know. They were after money. They went down the road of a civil suit rather than making a criminal complaint. They had no interest in stopping what they claimed was a paedophile. If they were telling the truth then they are directly responsible for any ather abuse that might have happened after that.

We can all see what type of people they are. They wanted money.

Boggles · 31-01-2019 07:54PM

The Chandlers had no interest in a criminal trial, that is why they went straight to engage with a civil lawyer to begin the extortion.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 07:58PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If they were telling the truth then they are directly responsible for any ather abuse that might have happened after that..

The person who is directly responsible for any abuse after that is the person who committed the abuse; ergo, Michael. But good to see where your heads at.

retro:electro · 31-01-2019 08:05PM

Boggles wrote: »

The Chandlers had no interest in a criminal trial, that is why they went straight to engage with a civil lawyer to begin the extortion.

Jackson was free to take it to trial if he wanted to. Buying someone off isn’t exactly conducive to a position of innocence.

But, around in circles we go.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments