Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles · 08-03-2019 12:43PM

Necro wrote: »

No, I'm baffled people are defending the quite frankly disgusting behaviour of Michael Jackson over a long time in regards to children.

You mean sleeping in the same as bed as them?

There is no one on here that isn't taking the piss defending it I'm afraid.

Again you are not the first person to try and push that mistruth.

retro:electro · 08-03-2019 12:44PM

Boggles wrote: »

I haven't watched anything on OJ in years. So maybe new evidence has come to light

But I had an interest in the trial as did most of the world, as far as I can remember I think it was the BBC who made a documentary a few years after and they were the first to highlight that his son was a very credible suspect and that was never followed up on, the reason given is the prosecution had all ready blown it's wad on OJ and there was no backing down.

His son apparently had a rage problem and a history of extreme violence, drug problem and wasn't too keen on his step mother. He was also a chef.

A credible theory posed at the time, was that the slowest car chases in the history of car chases with the Ford Bronco was not in fact to get away from the police but to lead them away from his son.

Again it's a very long time since I researched the subject but I remember thinking at the time backed with discussion that son was a very credible suspect.

Interesting answer. Thanks for responding. I’d agree too that the son was a highly dodge character and likely involved (he signed out of work earlier that night than usual) but for me there is absolultly no doubt in my mind whatsoever that OJ murdered his wife and Ron, and all evidence points towards this. I find arguments to the contrary totally baffling. Interesting too that your philosophy on this thread has been all about the proof yet you have no problem whatsoever pointing the finger towards OJ’s son despite there actually being no evidence whatsoever to prove this only speculation and conjecture as well as him being a bit dodge. Baffling.

Anyway, different strokes and all that :pac:

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 12:45PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

‘Michael would never have hurt a little kid, he was a kid himself in his mind’. Or chipping away at their credibility by focusing on minute details wrong in their recollections?

How do you want their essential truth about how Michael Jackson repeatedly abused them in his bedroom to be challenged?

It all hinges on credibility. Every court case does.

If an accuser tells one lie, that shows they are capable of telling lies to suit.

These guys suit was thrown out by judges for lying. I'm not saying all they say is lies.

But they wouldn't last 5 minutes in a court of law.

Necro · 08-03-2019 12:46PM

Boggles wrote: »

You mean sleeping in the same as bed as them?

There is no one on here that isn't taking the piss defending it I'm afraid.

Again you are not the first person to try and push that mistruth.

There's also the porn and candy given to children as young as seven.

Books of naked children found in his possession.

His quite frankly distorted and warped view that people were 'ignorant' for asking questions about a grown man sleeping in a bed with children.

And then there's the maid who saw him showering with a child.

I mean what actual other evidence do you want? A video?

That's enough circumstantial evidence for me personally anyways.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 12:46PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Interesting answer. Thanks for responding. I’d agree too that the son was a highly dodge character and likely involved (he signed out of work earlier that night than usual) but for me there is absolultly no doubt in my mind whatsoever that OJ murdered his wife and Ron, and all evidence points towards this. I find arguments to the contrary totally baffling. Interesting too that your philosophy on this thread has been all about the proof yet you have no problem whatsoever pointing the finger towards OJ’s son despite there actually being no evidence whatsoever to prove this. Baffling.

Apart from the evidence you just posted in the one post.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 12:48PM

Necro wrote: »

There's also the porn and candy given to children as young as seven.

You mean the porn that hadn't actually been published yet?

I'm sure he gave them candy though.

retro:electro · 08-03-2019 12:48PM

Boggles wrote: »

Apart from the evidence you just posted in the one post.

:pac:

I hope the irony of what you’re coming out with isn’t lost on you.

Necro · 08-03-2019 12:48PM

Boggles wrote: »

Apart from the evidence you just posted in the one post.

I think rectro's point is that again it's circumstantial evidence not tried in a court of law. Which is enough in this case for you to suspect the son, but apparently in Wacko Jacko's case not enough

retro:electro · 08-03-2019 12:50PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Imagine a documentary that portrayed only MJ's side of things, made out he was the most perfect person who ever lived - And in 4 hours there wasn't a single dissenting voice or opinion to the contrary.

What would your opinion be of such a documentary?

I don’t know. I can’t form an opinion on something I’ve never seen. Ridiculous question.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 12:51PM

retro:electro wrote: »

:pac:

I hope the irony of what you’re coming out with isn’t lost on you.

Sorry, you actually post evidence I didn't actually know about regarding the son and in the next paragraph you say there is absolutely no evidence. And then you proceed to mock me.

Listen I'm around too long to be snared by the same tired games, so please if you don't mind please don't interact with me anymore.

Thanks.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 12:52PM

Necro wrote: »

I think rectro's point is that again it's circumstantial evidence not tried in a court of law. Which is enough in this case for you to suspect the son, but apparently in Wacko Jacko's case not enough

Wack Jacko like OJ was found not guilty.

What's your point?

It was actually bubbles who molested the kids?

I believe there was no one molested, in the OJ trial there was some people definitely murdered because we had some bodies, that is not circumstantial.

Complete Nonsense.

Outlaw Pete · 08-03-2019 12:54PM

If they are lying then I think they're scumbags. Not for destroying MJ's legacy, but for what they've done to their own families.

retro:electro · 08-03-2019 12:56PM

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry, you actually post evidence I didn't actually know about regarding the son and in the next paragraph you say there is absolutely no evidence. And then you proceed to mock me.

Listen I'm around too long to be snared by the same tired games, so please if you don't mind please don't interact with me anymore.

Thanks.

The irony being you seem to hold a likely paedophile who paid off accusers with 23m in gag tape and shared beds relentlessly with little boys to a higher standard than someone who happened to have signed out of work an hour earlier on the night of a murder that was quite clearly done by the dude whose glove was found at the murder scene and had a history of documented abuse towards the deceased and bet her to a pulp on several occasions.

No problem. It would be a pleasure.

Necro · 08-03-2019 12:57PM

Boggles wrote: »

Wack Jacko like OJ was found not guilty.

What's your point?

It was actually bubbles who molested the kids?

He was found not guilty in terms of one child. When it's documented he slept in the same bed as at least seven - probably multiples of that - children, on many, many occasions.

Look you're never going to accept it until someone shows you a video (that likely doesn't exist) of Jackson abusing boys.

And it's not my job to convince you of that.

I've been sure he's an abuser for years, not even based off this documentary, with admittedly questionable characters making new claims.

I believe that Jackson was a sick, twisted child abuser, and you don't. And those viewpoints likely won't align any time in the near future.

So good day, sir!

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 12:58PM

Boggles wrote: »

Wack Jacko like OJ was found not guilty.

What's your point?

It was actually bubbles who molested the kids?

I believe there was no one molested, in the OJ trial there was some people definitely murdered because we had some bodies, that is not circumstantial.

Complete Nonsense.

You believe he's not guilty of molesting:
- the kids he was found not guilty of molesting (he had money & fame which we know can influence a trial)
- the kid(s) he paid off (massive red flag)
- the two that are speaking out now

If any man in your local town was accused that many times of being a child molester, would you defend him like this?

How much billowing black smoke must there be before you suspect there might be a fire?

Outlaw Pete · 08-03-2019 01:07PM

Interesting take re Wade's body language.

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

Boggles · 08-03-2019 01:07PM

Necro wrote: »

He was found not guilty in terms of one child. When it's documented he slept in the same bed as at least seven - probably multiples of that - children, on many, many occasions.

Look you're never going to accept it until someone shows you a video (that likely doesn't exist) of Jackson abusing boys.

And it's not my job to convince you of that.

I've been sure he's an abuser for years, not even based off this documentary, with admittedly questionable characters making new claims.

I believe that Jackson was a sick, twisted child abuser, and you don't. And those viewpoints likely won't align any time in the near future.

So good day, sir!

See that's what happens when you base your conclusions on little more than pure emotion.

Where as in a normal functioning society that believes in a justice system, there has to be evidence even credible circumstantial evidence.

I don't need a video to convince me that Michael is guilty, at this stage I would just take one credible "accuser" whose sole motive is not financial gain.

Very simple question, 4th time I have asked.

Why have the 2 lads not gone to the police and made a criminal complaint?

I imagine you can't answer that, so I suppose a Good Day to you Sir too.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 01:09PM

Boggles wrote: »

Why have the 2 lads not gone to the police and made a criminal complaint?

I imagine you can't answer that, so I suppose a Good Day to you Sir too.

Because you can't press charges against a dead man?

marklazarcovic · 08-03-2019 01:10PM

Is the gagg on Chandler still active if the accused is now dead? I'll bet there are a lot of parents preventing their sons from speaking up because they benefitted financially from their kids relationship with MJ and don't want the shame of it exposed to them.

I hope this documentary allows his no doubt multiple other victims to speak up, although it could be years before they get the courage,if ever.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 01:12PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

If any man in your local town was accused that many times of being a child molester, would you defend him like this?

There was a man in my local town who I knew very well, grew up with, who was accused of grooming.

It was a complete fabrication, the person who made the accusation lied to cover up their own crime. Unfortunately the man took his own life before the truth came out, because in the eyes of many he was all ready "guilty of something".

So yeah, that is one reason why actual evidence and not the court of public opinion or some unashamedly biased "documentary" is pretty important.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 01:12PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Because you can't press charges against a dead man?

Their suit is not against a dead man.

joe40 · 08-03-2019 01:12PM

For all the people out there that will only be satisfied with evidence that would result in a court conviction, well congratulations your hero is safe because that can't happen at this stage.

But there are those of us that can look at his well documented behaviour and reach the conclusion this was the actions of a dangerous, manipulative individual.

Would supporters of Michael Jackson honestly answer the following:

If Ed sherran (or any current celebrity) was sleeping with 13 year old boys would your response be "well if nothing is proved in court it's ok with me, I will ignore this behaviour and continue to be a fan"

I know that is what happened in the 80s & 90s but that doesn't make it right.

For me personally the current doc is largely irrelevant there is enough info in the public domain to make him and his actions hugely questionable.

His fanbase are well "fanatic", and for many he can have done no wrong, they just want to ignore everything and keep repeating things like "no evidence", "not proven in court".

Well that's fine but I think the rest of the world have moved on.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 01:12PM

Necro wrote: »

He was found not guilty in terms of one child. When it's documented he slept in the same bed as at least seven - probably multiples of that - children, on many, many occasions.

So where are these victims? Now is the perfect time to come forward.

We know from past experience when one or two people made allegations against Saville, Clifford, Cosby and Weinsten, dozens if not hundreds came forward with similar stories.

If allegations are made they have to be backed up with credible evidence such as witnesses, multiple independent witnesses.

Lets say MJ was as bad as Saville. Lets say he molested 10 different boys per year - 30 year adulthood = 300 potential victims.

So where the hell are they?

nullzero · 08-03-2019 01:13PM

It's strange that none of this changes what we already knew about Michael Jackson since the early 90's, but only now we're seeing radio stations ban his music.

We'll probably never know the truth of what exactly happened with Michael Jackson, but there are noises being made about a culture of child abuse in the entertainment industry that hasn't gotten any traction as yet. Hopefully with the publicity of this case people might take a greater interest in that going forward.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 01:14PM

Boggles wrote: »

Their suit is not against a dead man.

Yes, but your question was why didn't they go to the police to file criminal charges. You can't file charges against a dead man. That's why.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 01:16PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Yes, but your question was why didn't they go to the police to file criminal charges. You can't file charges against a dead man. That's why.

Yeah, we know that. Maybe read down through the thread and get even a small flavor of what is happening in regards their allegations, it would help greatly if you need to contribute.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 01:16PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If allegations are made they have to be backed up with credible evidence such as witnesses, multiple independent witnesses.

Whaaaaat?

You do realise how ridiculous this statement is.

Child abusers don't generally do their molestation in front of "multiple independent witnesses" for obvious reasons.

But we do have one to start with - the maid who saw him showering with a child.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 01:17PM

joe40 wrote: »

For all the people out there that will only be satisfied with evidence that would result in a court conviction, well congratulations your hero is safe because that can't happen at this stage.

But there are those of us that can look at his well documented behaviour and reach the conclusion this was the actions of a dangerous, manipulative individual.

Would supporters of Michael Jackson honestly answer the following:

If Ed sherran (or any current celebrity) was sleeping with 13 year old boys would your response be "well if nothing is proved in court it's ok with me, I will ignore this behaviour and continue to be a fan"

I know that is what happened in the 80s & 90s but that doesn't make it right.

For me personally the current doc is largely irrelevant there is enough info in the public domain to make him and his actions hugely questionable.

His fanbase are well "fanatic", and for many he can have done no wrong, they just want to ignore everything and keep repeating things like "no evidence", "not proven in court".

Well that's fine but I think the rest of the world have moved on.

You still struggle to make the distinction between being a fan of a fair and balanced trial or a balanced documentary and a fan of MJ. They are completely separate. But keep trying to link the two.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 01:18PM

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, we know that. Maybe read down through the thread and get even a small flavor of what is happening in regards their allegations, it would help greatly if you need to contribute.

You asked a question. I gave you the answer. No need to get pissy.

8-10 · 08-03-2019 01:19PM

Necro wrote: »

No, I'm baffled people are defending the quite frankly disgusting behaviour of Michael Jackson over a long time in regards to children.

He does not warrant any defence. Neither does Kelly. Neither does Saville.

There is a difference between defending Jackson and attacking poor arguments and thinking that Chandler, Arviso, Robson and Safechuck are liars.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments