Micky Jackson in trouble again

allybhoy · 07-03-2019 04:15PM

CFlat wrote: »

If the justice system in America, which is well known to be efficient and ruthless and takes no prisoners, no matter who you are, couldn't prove that Jackson was being inappropriate with children when he was alive, I can't get my head around why people think he is now. Is it just because a couple of lads who look well and speak well say he is?

Do you think OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

Boggles · 07-03-2019 04:16PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But they don't count Boggles.

What counts are a one sided documentary/propaganda as well as the opinions of social media commentators. These are far more qualified than judges, FBI, DA and so on. Maybe these institutions should be wrapped up altogether, courts shut down and all suspects tried by documentary makers in future.

We still are left with allegations but no hard evidence to back up what these two witnesses are saying.

Just a Poll on twitter.

Be done with it.

:pac:

Boggles · 07-03-2019 04:18PM

allybhoy wrote: »

Do you think OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

I don't.

retro:electro · 07-03-2019 04:20PM

Boggles wrote: »

I don't.

I mean its hardly surprising, but wow. Lol.

joe40 · 07-03-2019 04:21PM

Boggles wrote: »

Not just the public, the FBI, sheriffs department, child services and the DA.

Not one piece of evidence showed that any child was mistreated or there was an attempt to mistreat any child.

So a grown man sleeping with 13 year old boys (his own admission) is ok in your book, if the Police/FBI can't prove anything.

Deebles McBeebles · 07-03-2019 04:26PM

allybhoy wrote: »

Do you think OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

I do and freely admit the US justice system makes mistakes, such as OJ. I don't think this is the case with MJ though. However, I may be proven wrong. Some people are so certain they can't even wait for this to be brought back to court, its justice by documentary.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 04:28PM

joe40 wrote: »

So a grown man sleeping with 13 year old boys (his own admission) is ok in your book, if the Police/FBI can't prove anything.

Well it's not just his own admission it's the admission of several boys too.

But no it's no okay in my book, as I have said several times it's beyond creepy.

But again and this is the important part, that doesn't mean he raped the children.

You do understand the distinction?

Sharing a bed or room with someone is not illegal, raping them is.

You need evidence to prove the second part as the first part is common knowledge, there is no evidence despite constant surveillance and a prosecutor who would have crawled out over his Granny to nail Jackson.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 04:29PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I mean its hardly surprising, but wow. Lol.

What do you mean?

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 04:35PM

joe40 wrote: »

So a grown man sleeping with 13 year old boys (his own admission) is ok in your book, if the Police/FBI can't prove anything.

Did a certain famous female popstar sleep in the same bed as her adopted children?

If so I guess she is equally guilty.

If a woman sleeps with children who she is not related to, its fine. If a man sleeps with children he is not related to, he must be one thing.

I'm not saying MJ did or didn't do anything, but sharing a bed with someone while odd, is proof of nothing.

Look we all know MJ was odd. His best friend was a monkey. He lived in essentially a childrens theme park. It seems creepy now but oddly at the time no-one passed any heed. When you are as rich as he was you can live any way you want as long as you don't break the law.

roots2branches · 07-03-2019 04:36PM

Thanks for sharing, it's fascinating. Everyone on this thread should listen to this before casting judgment.

8-10 wrote: »

Podcast is "Reason Bound" and episode is called "Pirates in Neverland". It's on iTunes, pocket casts etc. but I'll link to the YouTube one below. It's a full 3hrs long but it's worth a listen I think to give a fuller picture of the context of the previous allegations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J1JQaIrxRU

SusieBlue · 07-03-2019 04:39PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Did a certain famous female popstar sleep in the same bed as her adopted children?

If so I guess she is equally guilty.

If a woman sleeps with children who she is not related to, its fine. If a man sleeps with children he is not related to, he must be one thing.

I'm not saying MJ did or didn't anything, but sharing a bed with someone while odd, is proof of nothing.

Look we all know MJ was odd. His best friend was a monkey. He lived in essentially a childrens theme park. It seems creepy now but oddly at the time no-one passed any heed. When you are as rich as he was you can live any way you want as long as you don't break the law.

Those were her children, she was their mother.
Completely different situation and a very poor justification for MJ's propensity for bed sharing with pre-pubescent boys he wasn't related to.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 04:41PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Those were her children, she was their mother.
Completely different situation and a very poor justification for MJ's propensity for bed sharing with pre-pubescent boys he wasn't related to.

She wasn't related to them though except with a piece of paper. Would it have made MJs behavior acceptable if he had adopted the children?

I just think there is a level of hypocrisy going on.

SusieBlue · 07-03-2019 04:42PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She wasn't related to them though except with a piece of paper. Would it have made MJs behavior acceptable if he had adopted the children?

I just think there is a level of hypocrisy going on.

Unless you can produce evidence that MJ was in fact the legal adoptive father of the children he shared beds with, your point is invalid, and completely irrelevant.

The hypocrisy is astounding but not in the way you think.

jam_mac_jam · 07-03-2019 04:46PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She wasn't related to them though except with a piece of paper. Would it have made MJs behavior acceptable if he had adopted the children?

I just think there is a level of hypocrisy going on.

Maybe if he adopted them then it would be the same thing. But he didn't so it isn't'. Not really relevant in the slightest.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 04:47PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Unless you can produce evidence that MJ was in fact the legal adoptive father of the children he shared beds with, your point is invalid.

The hypocrisy is astounding but not in the way you think.

Honestly this is laughable. I'm not condoning him sleeping with kids. You have yet to definitely prove he raped them though. Anything other than the testimony of two guys at least one of whose case has already been through out by a judge.

There is a reason for a statute of limitations. Its to stop people waiting years until all the evidence has been destroyed, key witnesses passed away or the accused deceased. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes to accurately investigate something.

So if these guys had a cast iron case years ago, why wait until now? When evidence and the accused is dead and can't defend himself.

As I keep repeating, documentaries are not the place to put someone on trial. Do you at least accept that?

retro:electro · 07-03-2019 04:49PM

I mean if you have to try and force a pathetic point so badly that you resort to comparing a middle aged man sharing a bed with little boys to a legal guardian sharing a bed with her children, it’s time to just turn off the computer.
Embarrassing stuff.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 04:51PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

So if these guys had a cast iron case years ago, why wait until now? When evidence and the accused is dead and can't defend himself.

The Jackson estate was broke, it apparently owed 500m when he died, it was the reason he was going back on the road, there was no money to be shaken down from it.

It's now worth over a billion, maybe 2, according to some reports.

Deebles McBeebles · 07-03-2019 04:52PM

Retro, as much as I don't want to engage you again, you've embarrassed yourself today. All you've done is make sly digs at people while sticking your fingers in your ears when someone asks you a question that you find tough. A completely closed mind when it comes to anything other than your own opinion. Ignore and deflect. That's embarrassing.

Deebles McBeebles · 07-03-2019 04:54PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As I keep repeating, documentaries are not the place to put someone on trial. Do you at least accept that?

You could say water is wet and some wouldn't agree.

SusieBlue · 07-03-2019 04:54PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Honestly this is laughable. I'm not condoning him sleeping with kids. You have yet to definitely prove he raped them though. Anything other than the testimony of two guys at least one of whose case has already been through out by a judge.

There is a reason for a statute of limitations. Its to stop people waiting years until all the evidence has been destroyed, key witnesses passed away or the accused deceased. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes to accurately investigate something.

So if these guys had a cast iron case years ago, why wait until now? When evidence and the accused is dead and can't defend himself.

As I keep repeating, documentaries are not the place to put someone on trial. Do you at least accept that?

Talk about shifting the goalposts.

You said that him sharing a bed with preteen boys was akin to an adoptive mother sharing a bed with her children.
They are in no way similar and comparing them is extremely disingenuous.

By comparing it to a mother/children scenario you ARE condoning it, because you are implying its normal and acceptable behaviour and it isn't.
You are justifying it by saying the two are on the same wavelength.
They aren't and its actually very offensive to suggest otherwise.

I refuse to acknowledge the rest of your post as that wasn't the point I was arguing and had nothing to do with your original post.

tigger123 · 07-03-2019 04:55PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I better stop giving my nephews gifts so if thats the case. For fear of being labelled something. Because thats the direction society is sadly heading.

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

retro:electro · 07-03-2019 04:56PM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Retro, as much as I don't want to engage you again, you've embarrassed yourself today. All you've done is make sly digs at people while sticking your fingers in your ears when someone asks you a question that you find tough. A completely closed mind when it comes to anything other than your own opinion. Ignore and deflect. That's embarrassing.

If you’ve a problem with my posts then report them. And as for “sly digs” your post is the height of irony.
Now most people here would like to continue reading about the documentary, not what you or anyone else think about my posting style.

And the only ones embarrassing themselves are the ones who are at pains to defend obvious paedo behaviour.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 04:58PM

tigger123 wrote: »

Would you be happy with your nephews spending time in a grown mans bed?

What a truly original question, I haven't seen it being posed at all on this thread.

I'm going to suggest the answer is no though, I just have a hunch.

Deebles McBeebles · 07-03-2019 04:59PM

retro:electro wrote: »

If you’ve a problem with my posts then report them. And as for “sly digs” your post is the height of irony.
Now most people here would like to continue reading about the documentary, not what you or anyone else think about my posting style.

Your posting style? I was talking about the content of your posts.

As for your attempt to control what happens next in the thread :rolleyes:
Like I said, ignore and deflect.

tigger123 · 07-03-2019 05:00PM

Boggles wrote: »

What a truly original question, I haven't seen it being posed at all on this thread.

I'm going to suggest the answer is no though, I just have a hunch.

Point I'm making is that people are quick to brush off the behavior, but wouldn't dream of letting someone they care about be in the same situation.

No wonder the question comes up again and again.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 05:01PM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Retro, as much as I don't want to engage you again, you've embarrassed yourself today. All you've done is make sly digs at people while sticking your fingers in your ears when someone asks you a question that you find tough. A completely closed mind when it comes to anything other than your own opinion. Ignore and deflect. That's embarrassing.

The constant goading in an attempt to get reactions with the sole goal of getting people sanctioned is quite tiresome and fairly sneaky but hardly original.

I have never reported a post or put someone on ignore, but I find if you stop feeding them they will usually go away.

ToBeFrank123 · 07-03-2019 05:02PM

retro:electro wrote: »

I mean if you have to try and force a pathetic point so badly that you resort to comparing a middle aged man sharing a bed with little boys to a legal guardian sharing a bed with her children, it’s time to just turn off the computer.
Embarrassing stuff.

Sound.

So if MJ flew to Africa, bought/adopted a number of orphans, got the legal paperwork sorted, flew back to the US, was their recognized legal guardian, and routinely slept in the same bed as them. What would you say then? It was ok? Or still creepy? Or would you imply in retrospect that something was very wrong?

SusieBlue · 07-03-2019 05:03PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sound.

So if MJ flew to Africa, bought/adopted a number of orphans, got the legal paperwork sorted, flew back to the US, was their recognized legal guardian, and routinely slept in the same bed as them. What would you say then? It was ok? Or still creepy? Or would you imply in retrospect that something was very wrong?

I don't know why you can't seem to grasp that they aren't the same thing.

tigger123 · 07-03-2019 05:04PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Sound.

So if MJ flew to Africa, bought/adopted a number of orphans, got the legal paperwork sorted, flew back to the US, was their recognized legal guardian, and routinely slept in the same bed as them. What would you say then? It was ok? Or still creepy? Or would you imply in retrospect that something was very wrong?

I think social services would be all over that.

Boggles · 07-03-2019 05:05PM

tigger123 wrote: »

Point I'm making is that people are quick to brush off the behavior, but wouldn't dream of letting someone they care about be in the same situation.

I don't think anyone (who is not taking the piss) is brushing off the behavior, it is down right creepy behavior compared to not just social norms today, but norms back then.

It's people who think that behavior automatically equates to child rape are the ones brushing off any other possible reasoning.

Jackson has explained it himself as have many people who have grown up with him and spent considerable amounts of time with him.

Again that's brushed off.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments