Micky Jackson in trouble again

JohnCreedon81 · 08-03-2019 04:30PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Nope, like you my mind isn't made up. I just need to see more evidence to back up what these accusers are saying. Solid evidence, not insinuations such as because he acted this way or that way it must be true.
Solid evidence directly relating to what Safechuck alleges for example. All we have is his word. If he was a highly credible person, that would be almost enough for me. But he's been peddling accusations for a number of years now and one judge in particular thought he was talking baloney.

But what more evidence should you need than a poster in this very thread who claims to be an expert cos like, she like listened to 100s of pointless podcasts, and oh wait, the clincher, she partook in at least 6 boards threads on the subject matter. :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:

Don’t you dare question or oppose her for a second though or you’ll be labeled a paedo defender

:rolleyes:

sligeach · 08-03-2019 04:32PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Yes, and if this documentary was the first and only time we had every heard anything about MJ being a paedo, I'd agree with you.

But there have been dozens of accusers over decades, and plenty of circumstantial evidence (which a lot of people misunderstand to mean it's invalid - juries can convict based on circumstantial evidence if it convinces them "beyond a reasonable doubt")

I can't be 100% sure because I wasn't there, but I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Names please?

08-03-2019 04:38PM

Macaulay Culkin, do we think he was a victim but won’t come forward? risk losing his career?

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 04:38PM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

But what more evidence should you need than a poster in this very thread who claims to be an expert cos like, she like listened to 100s of pointless podcasts, and oh wait, the clincher, she partook in at least 6 boards threads on the subject matter. :pac: :pac: :pac: :pac:

Don’t you dare question or oppose her for a second though or you’ll be labeled a paedo defender :rolleyes:

I've actually repeatedly acknowledged that I could be wrong. I'm not an expert. Can you do the same?

Your only contribution directed at me is a personal attack, which I consider a lack of confidence in your own pov.

joe40 · 08-03-2019 04:39PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I'm not the FBI. I didn't spend 10 years and send out 90 officers to take the place apart top from bottom. They found no evidence of molestation.

Its not for me to say what happened here. All I ask for is independent evidence.

For the last time these accusers have been laughed out of it by a judge before they even got to court. They have serious credibility issues. Its a pity they didn't make it to court so their credibility could be called into question, but the judge made the decision these guys were not reliable and would be wasting everyone's time.

I don't care if its Michael Jackson, Mother Theresa, Hitler or Saddam Hussein, the principle of a fair and balanced trial is the same. And that's the most disturbing thing about this documentary, the effort to portray it as true and accurate when it is as clearly as one sided as you can get.

That is not the case though, yourself and other posters are constantly trying to undermine the evidence, that is different from not believing it.

This includes the following:

If abuse took place, where are the other victims - totally irrelevant

If abuse took place where are the Witnesses - Perfectly feasible for an abuser to avoid witnesses whether indoors or outside

A grown man sleeping with kids is just weird and creepy. - How about dangerous and twisted.

Constantly going on about evidence not standing up in court when this is not a court case.

This is more than simply looking for more evidence it is actively supporting Jackson and conveniently downplaying al the stuff that is in the public domain.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 04:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Macaulay Culkin, do we think he was a victim but won’t come forward? risk losing his career?

Pure speculation: I think he wouldn't have touched him because he was already rich and famous in his own right, which would have made grooming him much riskier.

retro:electro · 08-03-2019 04:40PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I've actually repeatedly acknowledged that I could be wrong. I'm not an expert. Can you do the same?

Your only contribution directed at me is a personal attack, which I consider a lack of confidence in your own pov.

It’s actually directed at me KLR

From someone thread banned also but at least they took time out from their obsessive thanking of any old waffle to formulate some kind of point.

The bruised egos are a sight to behold. Don’t want to be labelled a paedo defender, maybe don’t defend obvious paedo behaviour :pac:

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 04:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Macaulay Culkin, do we think he was a victim but won’t come forward? risk losing his career?

There's nothing to stop him coming forward now. MJ is dead, he can say what he wants. He is/was fairly wealthy so money is not a motive. Nor does he need money from a non disclosure clause. His parents don't need the money or a pay off either.

If he came forward and made accusations from first hand experience, that would certainly change things. In fact it would be enough for me.

innuendo141 · 08-03-2019 04:41PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Macaulay Culkin, do we think he was a victim but won’t come forward? risk losing his career?

Well considering the other boy Brett Barnes referenced in the program now has a lawsuit against HBO for the implications made, I'd say he'll come out in the next few days and say something.

Sephiroth_dude · 08-03-2019 04:44PM

MOD

JohnCreedon you were told not too post in this thread again,take a nice little holiday for yourself .

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 04:45PM

retro:electro wrote: »

It’s actually directed at me KLR
From someone thread banned also but at least they took time out from their obsessive thanking of any old waffle to formulate some kind of point.

The bruised egos are a sight to behold. Don’t want to be labelled a paedo defender, maybe don’t defend obvious paedo behaviour :pac:

You just keep flogging that red herring.

The principle of a balanced trial is universal. It applies regardless of who you are, your status, your name.

You don't remove it because you dislike someone or hate someone's music.

And that's what all the critics of this documentary are defending.

So nice try, a swing and a miss for you.

I suppose anyone who defended Saddam Hussein having a fair trial is guilty of defending his crimes, if we follow your flawed logic.

SoundsRight · 08-03-2019 04:46PM

Good podcast from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/mar/08/lets-talk-about-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland

They raise some good points. If the accusors are motivated by money, why aren't other stars attracting the same sort of attention? You don't see anyone else having sleepovers with children. Even pre #metoo it was considered creepy.

And the Peter Pam image, with the childlike voice, pet monkey and living in a theme park, was it all just a distraction to mask his true intentions? Bit like Savile with the flashy tracksuits, cigars and jewellery. Wonder what they're getting up to down there.

ohnonotgmail · 08-03-2019 04:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Macaulay Culkin, do we think he was a victim but won’t come forward? risk losing his career?

So what is stopping him coming forward now? Its not like he has much of a career to lose.

8-10 · 08-03-2019 05:14PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

nearly every big case is followed by a lawsuit for cash.

Except in the Jordy Chandler 1993 case....

sligeach · 08-03-2019 05:15PM

retro:electro wrote: »

And a former maid who has nothing to gain from lying.

Those looking for a conspiracy need to look a little closer to home.

Can I have the name of the maid please?

Beechwoodspark · 08-03-2019 05:25PM

Jackson and his music have been thrown into the dustbin of history.

Shame on his family for enabling and protecting him for so long in the futile hope they’d make money out of it.

Shame on the fans who knowingly condone his disgusting behaviour.

Janet Jackson and his pathetic brothers should all be boycotted.

Dirty dirty bastards all.

Balmed Out · 08-03-2019 05:26PM

I think its appalling that there are those who object to male creche workers etc, plenty of men are more maternal in many ways than many women and are wonderful child minders, teachers, coaches etc however I have never known anyone male or female to ideally spend their free time with kids unrelated to them.

Its perfectly normal to wave at a small child and pull funny faces, its very different to bring them home with you.

Its perfectly normal to go to bed with your own young child to help them fall asleep or whatever its really not to do so with other peoples children as a matter of preference.

Ive read his lawyers letter and wouldnt argue with much in it but at the same time most of it is irrelevant.
If he is guilty that he would select vulnerable children with terrible parents is a given. That children growing up in such an environment would struggle to come to terms or deny it happening seems to be expected too. That when speaking about it they may seem rehearsed is understandable too as whether true or false their bound to have repeated it countless times.

As for money I dont think that can be used as an argument, he cant be jailed and if I were a victim id sue for some sort of public acceptance of his guilt and my innocence and yeah id want money, who wouldnt?

I dont disagree that the man wanted world peace, enjoyed playing innocently with kids, was caring and loving etc but I would also deem it likely that he had another far less wholesome side where he is likely to have abused children or even just got off in private to their proximity and where he groomed other people to provide a defence - wives, child stars that he did not abuse etc.

Having ex child stars, celebrities etc publicly defending him is nere nor there. Pedophiles dont molest every child they come in contact with and they arent always the stereotypical angry old priest. Having innocent friendships with many help them identify those they can manipulate the easiest as well as deflect suspicions.

Balmed Out · 08-03-2019 05:39PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Jackson and his music have been thrown into the dustbin of history.

Shame on his family for enabling and protecting him for so long in the futile hope they’d make money out of it.

Janet Jackson and his pathetic brothers should all be boycotted.

Dirty dirty bastards all.

Pretty normal for those closest to be last to accept something like this. I presume it would start with little steps so that a lot of weird behavior is somewhat normalized and your emotionally involved so wont want it to be true. Unless anything is video taped or there is medical evidence this kind of thing will normally be one persons word against another.

He could possibly have been simply an extremely naive and weird individual who is innocent. Look at the amount of people who think hes innocent and never met him.
How many of those would think that some bachelor down the road who was found to be sleeping with young children was innocent of wrong doing even if there were no accusations.
I cant say hes definitely guilty though as a non betting man id still wager my house. I wouldn't blame his family if complete strangers to the man can so easily accept his behavior.

Beechwoodspark · 08-03-2019 05:46PM

Also shame on the fans who knowingly condone his desperate behaviour

These fans fool nobody who can fairly assess the cess pit that was Jackson’s life and of course his entire family who tried to fool the world but ended up in utter disgrace.

Boggles · 08-03-2019 05:50PM

joe40 wrote: »

Constantly going on about evidence not standing up in court when this is not a court case.

But why isn't there a court case?

The people who are been accused in the law suit of some pretty heinous crimes are still alive.

Why have the 2 lads not made a criminal complaint.

All they talk about is "justice", surely the main goal should be for these people to answer for their alleged crimes in a criminal court.

I think it's my 6th time posing this question.

fryup · 08-03-2019 05:50PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Janet Jackson and his pathetic brothers should all be boycotted.

Dirty dirty bastards all.

ah come on now, you can't blame the entire family...i'm sure most of them were in the dark about this "alleged" behaviour like the rest of us

after all they weren't in constant contact with him

Beechwoodspark · 08-03-2019 05:53PM

fryup wrote: »

ah come on now, you can't blame the entire family...i'm sure most of them were in the dark about this "alleged" behaviour like the rest of us

after all they weren't in constant contact with him

I’ve read a number of books and many articles etc. they all knew from early days but enabled him and tried to hush it up. Only concern was money with them.

The original complete scumbag of all this is their father - joe Jackson. All of them were involved though.

retro:electro · 08-03-2019 05:53PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Also shame on the fans who knowingly condone his desperate behaviour

These fans fool nobody who can fairly assess the cess pit that was Jackson’s life and of course his entire family who tried to fool the world but ended up in utter disgrace.

Well said. But the most hilarious fans are the ones who pretend they’re not fans. Who act like they don’t even like his music yet will defend to the death the absolute indefensible and give justifications and allowances where no other human would be given and pull all their info from fan sites.
So transparent.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 05:59PM

fryup wrote: »

ah come on now, you can't blame the entire family...i'm sure most of them were in the dark about this "alleged" behaviour like the rest of us

after all they weren't in constant contact with him

All guilty in Beechwoods eyes including those who had nothing to do with it.

Once you are related you're guilty.

Its a continuation of the "trial outside a courtroom" trend that seems unfortunately to be gaining ground around the world.

If we continue down this route, we will try suspects using twitter polls. No need for evidence or objectivity or judges and juries, its people's opinions and subjective feelings that matter most.

Round 'em up Beechwood!

Nice soap boxing by the way.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 06:02PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ve read a number of books and many articles etc. they all knew from early days but enabled him and tried to hush it up. Only concern was money with them.

The original complete scumbag of all this is their father - joe Jackson. All of them were involved though.

Accusations thrown around like confetti with no evidence to support it. You are well suited to this thread.

KikiLaRue · 08-03-2019 06:03PM

Boggles wrote: »

But why isn't there a court case?

The people who are been accused in the law suit of some pretty heinous crimes are still alive.

Why have the 2 lads not made a criminal complaint.

All they talk about is "justice", surely the main goal should be for these people to answer for their alleged crimes in a criminal court.

I think it's my 6th time posing this question.

I gave you the answer this morning but you decided you didn’t like it or something.

You can’t make a criminal complaint against a dead person. There’s no one to arrest. No one to prosecute. No one to jail.

What part of that don’t you understand? You can’t put a dead man on trial.

Beechwoodspark · 08-03-2019 06:06PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Accusations thrown around like confetti with no evidence to support it. You are well suited to this thread.

Shame on those who knowingly condone his disgusting activities.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 06:13PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I gave you the answer this morning but you decided you didn’t like it or something.

You can’t make a criminal complaint against a dead person. There’s no one to arrest. No one to prosecute. No one to jail.

What part of that don’t you understand? You can’t put a dead man on trial.

You can sue his estate though.

Oh wait, they tried that. The judge threw it out before it went to court. If a judge who has seen all the evidence from both sides, thinks that, its good enough for me.

ToBeFrank123 · 08-03-2019 06:14PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Shame on those who knowingly condone his disgusting activities.

Give us a break. All you are doing is soap boxing with little to add to the discussion.

sligeach · 08-03-2019 06:15PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Jackson and his music have been thrown into the dustbin of history.

Shame on his family for enabling and protecting him for so long in the futile hope they’d make money out of it.

Shame on the fans who knowingly condone his disgusting behaviour.

Janet Jackson and his pathetic brothers should all be boycotted.

Dirty dirty bastards all.

Tell us how you really feel You and retro:electro should get along very well. Have you got proof to backup your inflammatory post about Michael's family?

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments