Micky Jackson in trouble again

Mr.Wemmick · 10-03-2019 01:24PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Can you provide any solid evidence at all that he was a paedophile? besides some allegations that haven't proven to be true.

I'll revert back to my earlier post:

What has happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Are we now deciding that:

Well it should only apply in some cases because people have come forward and accused him of being a paedophile and I'm going to believe them and therefore he is guilty.

Do you know how insane that sounds?

But you're the one who said it.

The documentaries are all opinion. We are not in a court of law. Based on what Jackson said in the Bashir documentary, it was clear he was not a well individual and had very strange relationships with children. Jackson's words are open to interpretation, and your welcome to interpret them any way you wish.

We all read the info, listen to what is said and form an opinion.

It's not difficult.

10-03-2019 01:26PM

fryup wrote: »

for what? being affectionate towards children? having sleepovers with children?

you know with me too and jimmy savile it gone the other extreme now....complete paranoia...

...kinda reminds of that Chris Morris brass eye parody years back > Paedogeddon

So Bob down the road has regular movie nights and sleepovers in his house with young boys. Calls these boys his best friends. You let your 8 year old son go, and he tells you he slept with Bob in his bed, with nobody else in the room. Would you think Bob has a case to answer, or is he just affectionate?

LessOutragePlz · 10-03-2019 01:33PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

But you're the one who said it.

The documentaries are all opinion. We are not in a court of law. Based on what Jackson said in the Bashir documentary, it was clear he was not a well individual and had very strange relationships with children. Jackson's words are open to interpretation, and your welcome to interpret them any way you wish.

We all read the info, listen to what is said and form an opinion.

It's not difficult.

I said it because that is what most people are thinking. He's guilty based on the allegations from two men.

Yeah well apparently most people have formed the opinion that he is a paedophile. Which isn't true at all because there is no evidence to support that.

sligeach · 10-03-2019 01:39PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I was watching the Martin Bashir interview and Jackson insisted he always slept on the floor and the kids were in the bed. Again, how true that is...?

Apparently after the second case (the one in 2003 I think) the family intervened and told him to stop kids sleeping over, it was only going to lead to trouble and to spend more time with his family and apparently this is what he did.

Ya, I believe it was his mother that told him. He never went back to Neverland after the trial. Correction, the 2nd case was in 2005. He pretty much abandoned it, he felt violated after the raids. It wasn’t his home anymore.

fryup · 10-03-2019 01:42PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

So Bob down the road has regular movie nights and sleepovers in his house with young boys. Calls these boys his best friends. You let your 8 year old son go, and he tells you he slept with Bob in his bed, with nobody else in the room. Would you think Bob has a case to answer, or is he just affectionate?

we're not talking about your local nonce

we're talking about michael jackson the most famous pop star in the world he had thousands of kids visiting neverland over the years..he was open about it...he's been dead 10 years and yet we had next to zero allegations against him

whats to stop people coming forward if anything inappropriate happened

10-03-2019 01:54PM

fryup wrote: »

we're not talking about your local nonce

we're talking about michael jackson the most famous pop star in the world he had thousands of kids visiting neverland over the years..he was open about it...he's been dead 10 years and yet we had next to zero allegations against him

whats to stop people coming forward if anything inappropriate happened

Why is everyone else held to a higher standard than Michael Jackson?

4 people have come forward and they have been attacked and belittled.

Mr.Wemmick · 10-03-2019 01:57PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I said it because that is what most people are thinking. He's guilty based on the allegations from two men.

Yeah well apparently most people have formed the opinion that he is a paedophile. Which isn't true at all because there is no evidence to support that.

And going by that argument, the opposite is also true:

many people have formed an opinion he is totally innocent, which can not be proved going by the decades of visual evidence and what MJ has said himself on camera.

The Nal · 10-03-2019 02:01PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Why is everyone else held to a higher standard than Michael Jackson?

4 people have come forward and they have been attacked and belittled.

And received death threats.

Which is why more people havent. Getting fiddled and then told youre going to be killed. No thanks.

LessOutragePlz · 10-03-2019 02:01PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

And going by that argument, the opposite is also true:

many people have formed an opinion he is totally innocent, which can not be proved going by the decades of visual evidence and what MJ has said himself on camera.

But it can be proved because he hasn't been convicted of anything and therefore, by definition he is innocent.

You can cite all the "visual evidence" you want and whatever MJ has previously said in interviews but none of it proves that he is paedophile.

valoren · 10-03-2019 02:03PM

We'd be mindful to understand how manipulative people can and do look to exploit playing the victim. The documentary was one very long attempt at playing victim preying on people's sympathies. The manipulative bent being that they present themselves as victims of child sexual abuse and this makes people tend towards refraining from criticising them because no one wants to be deemed attacking the abused. I believe this is a case of that and they've been pretty successful too as anyone pointing out the litany of holes in their story is deemed to be making excuses for Jackson.

Mr.Wemmick · 10-03-2019 02:08PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But it can be proved because he hasn't been convicted of anything and therefore, by definition he is innocent.

You can cite all the "visual evidence" you want and whatever MJ has previously said in interviews but none of it proves that he is paedophile.

In your opinion.. :rolleyes:

Anyway, here's the King of documentaries Theroux's opinion

LessOutragePlz · 10-03-2019 02:18PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

In your opinion.. :rolleyes:

Anyway, here's the King of documentaries Theroux's opinion

Not an opinion it's a fact he's innocent since he has not been convicted of a crime. No opinions there just undeniable facts which people claiming that he is a paedophile can't seem to understand.

Oh so the so called king of documentaries says he's a paedophile so it must be true :rolleyes:

What about Macaulay Culkin saying that he's not a paedophile: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/maccaulay-culkin-michael-jackson-trial-testimony-kieran-culkin

So who do we believe in this situation a documentary maker or a former child actor?

KikiLaRue · 10-03-2019 02:20PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

But it can be proved because he hasn't been convicted of anything and therefore, by definition he is innocent.

You can cite all the "visual evidence" you want and whatever MJ has previously said in interviews but none of it proves that he is paedophile.

By that logic, if you get away with it it didn’t happen.

If you rape someone, you are a rapist, regardless of whether a court found you guilty.

If he molested those children, he was a paedophile even though he will never stand trial for it.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 10-03-2019 02:22PM

Mod note: sligeach, don't post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

KikiLaRue · 10-03-2019 02:22PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Not an opinion it's a fact he's innocent since he has not been convicted of a crime. No opinions there just undeniable facts which people claiming that he is a paedophile can't seem to understand.

Oh so the so called king of documentaries says he's a paedophile so it must be true :rolleyes:

What about Macaulay Culkin saying that he's not a paedophile: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/maccaulay-culkin-michael-jackson-trial-testimony-kieran-culkin

So who do we believe in this situation a documentary maker or a former child actor?

You don’t have to choose between the two. It’s perfectly possible he molested some children and not others.

Most paedos choose particularly vulnerable children to groom. As a rich and famous star in his own right, Culkin would have been a very risky choice and MJ would have known that.

LessOutragePlz · 10-03-2019 02:26PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

By that logic, if you get away with it it didn’t happen.

If you rape someone, you are a rapist, regardless of whether a court found you guilty.

If he molested those children, he was a paedophile even though he will never stand trial for it.

Nope the logic is that he is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't gotten away with anything because he is not guilty of doing anything

Beechwoodspark · 10-03-2019 02:28PM

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

KikiLaRue · 10-03-2019 02:31PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Nope the logic is that he is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't gotten away with anything because he is not guilty of doing anything

So if someone raped you and they didn’t get caught, you wouldn’t have been raped?

sligeach · 10-03-2019 02:32PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

Look it's the hateful liar again. Found those answers to my questions yet? No, and you'll never find them because you made that rubbish up. Of course you'll say it again. Now try for the first time giving me answers please.

10-03-2019 02:33PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

It goes to show that he did indeed groom large sections of society. Not as actively as he groomed the children, but he carefully created a sympathetic persona so that people would see him as harmless. He also convinced people he was somehow exempt from being held to the same standards as the rest of the population.

Beechwoodspark · 10-03-2019 02:34PM

sligeach wrote: »

Look it's the hateful liar again. Found those answers to my questions yet? No, and you'll never find them because you made that rubbish up.

In a way to me it is akin to a modern personality cult. The emphasis being on cult.

Not really about the music etc.

The Golden Miller · 10-03-2019 02:34PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Nope the logic is that he is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't gotten away with anything because he is not guilty of doing anything

So if Bob, the local nonce, touches up your kid in bed alone and you go to court but have no evidence, this will be your default position....."well you see son, he never touched you up, as the court said he wasn't guilty, therefore you're a liar"

Mam of 4 · 10-03-2019 02:34PM

It dumbfounds me how people expect someone to have proof of being abused . What are you meant to do , ask your abuser can you take notes or a picture for future use in case you decide to go to the authorities about it ?

This is crazy to me tbh , too emotive anyway , think I'll stop following the thread .

LessOutragePlz · 10-03-2019 02:35PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So if someone raped you and they didn’t get caught, you wouldn’t have been raped?

No but if someone alleges that the were abused:

That automatically means that there alleged abuser is a paedophile?

This is what many people are claiming in this thread without a single piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations.

fryup · 10-03-2019 02:36PM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’ll say it again

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic excuses for his behaviour over the years.

well, I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic lies by Robson & Safechuck in this hatchet job documentary

Dontfadeaway · 10-03-2019 02:36PM

KikiLaRue wrote: »

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Not an opinion it's a fact he's innocent since he has not been convicted of a crime. No opinions there just undeniable facts which people claiming that he is a paedophile can't seem to understand.

Oh so the so called king of documentaries says he's a paedophile so it must be true :rolleyes:

What about Macaulay Culkin saying that he's not a paedophile: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/maccaulay-culkin-michael-jackson-trial-testimony-kieran-culkin

So who do we believe in this situation a documentary maker or a former child actor?

You don’t have to choose between the two. It’s perfectly possible he molested some children and not others.

Most paedos choose particularly vulnerable children to groom. As a rich and famous star in his own right, Culkin would have been a very risky choice and MJ would have known that.

Culkin said he was in his bed. Even doing that is risky, he is still sticking to his story that nothing happened and they just played games which was the same story of Robson and Safechuck before they changed their minds.

Beechwoodspark · 10-03-2019 02:37PM

In a way to me it is akin to a modern personality cult. The emphasis being on cult.

Not really about the music etc.

10-03-2019 02:38PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but if someone alleges that the were abused:

That automatically means that there alleged abuser is a paedophile?

This has what many people are claiming in this thread without a single piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations.

There is substantial witness testimony and clear patterns of behaviour over decades. People are making judgements based on the man's actions, not one documentary.

Beechwoodspark · 10-03-2019 02:39PM

fryup wrote: »

well, I'm amazed that seemingly intelligent ppl are taken in by the sheer pathetic lies by Robson & Safechuck in this hatchet job documentary

To be clear I am talking about the totality of allegations from the late 70s until his ignominious death in 2009

KikiLaRue · 10-03-2019 02:41PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

No but if someone alleges that the were abused:

That automatically means that there alleged abuser is a paedophile?

This has what many people are claiming in this thread without a single piece of evidence to substantiate the allegations.

Quite a large body of circumstantial evidence has been outlined in this thread:
- the payout to Jordan Chandler, his first accuser in 1993
- the maid who said she saw him in the shower with a child but changed her story after a $2 million “severance package”.
- his own sister Latoya said he was a paedo and took it back after her family cut her out

There’s loads more. Feel free to read through the thread.

If you still believe he is not a child molester that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to hold, but the fact that he didn’t get convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t do it.

This isn’t coming from nowhere.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments