Micky Jackson in trouble again

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 11:43PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

The jury was split in 2005. Some of the jurors knew he was a child molester but ultimately the 'not guilty' result was returned because they couldn't prove the abuse beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean he's innocent. Sexual abuse is notoriously difficult to prove.

Of the jurors who believed Jackson, one dismissed the testimony of Arvito because he appeared to smirk at one point, and another had issues with him not being emotional enough. This is what shaped their thought process. Some people are idiots, and sometimes idiots sit on juries.

Jury of your peers is how it works. This seems to suggest you only approve of it when it deliver verdicts with which you agree. It's still a far better option than trial by public opinion, social media or dunking.

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 11:46PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Guilty so

Think the verdict came out differently no matter what you think it should have been.

Wheeliebin30 · 10-03-2019 11:47PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Think the verdict came out differently no matter what you think it should have been.

Ah jaysus

is_that_so · 10-03-2019 11:50PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ah jaysus

I know. Terrible. Legal systems should really do what we tell them.

ceadaoin. · 10-03-2019 11:50PM

is_that_so wrote: »

It was just a question.

No. You tried to insinuate and put it out there that it happened when Jackson was a child. It didn't.

It shows a pattern of behaviour, even back then

10-03-2019 11:54PM

is_that_so wrote: »

Jury of your peers is how it works. This seems to suggest you only approve of it when it deliver verdicts with which you agree. It's still a far better option than trial by public opinion, social media or dunking.

I'm not suggesting we get rid of juries, I'm just pointing out that they're not infallible. Some jurors decide on a feeling rather than critically analysing the case.

mikeym · 10-03-2019 11:56PM

Its too late now Jacko is dead.

The documentary was very tedious to watch at the end.

We all knew Jacko was a fruit cake and liked to have boys in his bedroom so I blame the mothers.

Gimme A Pound · 10-03-2019 11:58PM

Flying Fox wrote: »

I'm not suggesting we get rid of juries, I'm just pointing out that they're not infallible. Some jurors decide on a feeling rather than critically analysing the case.

Yeah remember the woman saying she wasn't gonna put up with the bad attitude she perceived Gavin Arvizo's mother to have. Awful stupid **** can influence a decision.

tylercheribini · 10-03-2019 11:58PM

watching the doc it really struck me what a specific type of boy Jackson chose to befriend, if it was about altruism surely it would have been the whole spectrum of boys and girls.

Gimme A Pound · 11-03-2019 12:00AM

mikeym wrote: »

Its too late now Jacko is dead.

The documentary was very tedious to watch at the end.

We all knew Jacko was a fruit cake and liked to have boys in his bedroom so I blame the mothers.

No, I blame the grooming, manipulative abuser. I blame the *parents* (are mothers the only parents?

) too though.

micar · 11-03-2019 12:11AM

mikeym wrote: »

so I blame the mothers.

I blame the perpetrator.

The mothers are victims as well.

He had an unhealthy interest/relationship with young children.

This all stems from his father who physically and mentally abused him. When touring he would share a room with his elder brothers who'd be shagging birds in the next bed.

He grew up without any meaningful childhood, little or no formal education.

He developed a sick fascination with young boys and abused them alone. He promised them the world. They loved him. They had no idea what was happening was wrong as they had nothing to base it on.

I'm.sure fans seeing these boys hanging out with him were thinking....these boys are so lucky when in fact they were the unluckiest children in the world.

His relationships with women were purely for media. His children were born using IVF. Was he actuallg able to connect to an adult?

Gimme A Pound · 11-03-2019 12:18AM

The parents were "groomed" too, but still... they were their parents.

hetuzozaho · 11-03-2019 12:21AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

One of these accusers labelled himself the master of deception. That immediately should raise alarm bells.

Definitely does with me.

As does the guy sleeping with children, I'm sure you'd agree

Gimme A Pound · 11-03-2019 12:50AM

That documentary was rough. Those poor men - my heart goes out to them. They started off coming across as pretty well adjusted, but as it went on, you could see how damaged they are. To falsify such a thing would require Dustin Hoffman levels of acting.

Even though they have nothing to be ashamed of, they must still carry such shame for "letting it" happen - but they were groomed, and there was a Stockholm syndrome thing going on. I thought it was perfectly encapsulated when James talked about how he would be fit to kill someone who did that to his children, yet he doesn't feel the same kind of anger over it being done to him.

And what it has done to their families too...

Right before that documentary I thought of Michael Jackson as a possible abuser but who was kind of a victim because he had no childhood and was possibly sexually abused himself, and just wanted to live the childhood he never had... but now, despite truth in the above, I just see him as a calculating, scheming, manipulative bastard.

People say he was a naive, innocent, child-like man. Yes, that's the kind of thing groomers want you to think.

ToBeFrank123 · 11-03-2019 12:54AM

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Definitely does with me.

As does the guy sleeping with children, I'm sure you'd agree

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar? And that's essentially what many people have done. Accepted unconditionally as gospel the word for two proven liars and self confessed deceivers.

A court of law is the only place to interrogate these guys properly. Why are some people so opposed to court rooms and the law?

hetuzozaho · 11-03-2019 01:00AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar? And that's essentially what many people have done. Accepted unconditionally as gospel the word for two proven liars and self confessed deceivers.

A court of law is the only place to interrogate these guys properly. Why are some people so opposed to court rooms and the law?

Think you replied to the wrong person

11-03-2019 01:17AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar?

Michael Jackson is also a proven liar. He told the insurers of his 2009 tour that he hadn't seen a doctor since 2005 and didn't disclose the prescription drugs he was taking. The insurers took legal action but it was settled with the estate in the end. He has also lied about his plastic surgery - who seriously believes he's only had work done on his nose?

What about his credibility?

fryup · 11-03-2019 01:23AM

^^^^^^^^^^^

telling pork pies about plastic surgery and telling pork pies about child abuse are two totally different things

those of you sitting on the fence...i urge you to watch this..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_kQgPXlNdY

its as plain as day they're lying

11-03-2019 01:30AM

I did watch Oprah and it's plain as day to me that they're telling the truth. James is utterly traumatised.

Gimme A Pound · 11-03-2019 01:34AM

There was the same kind of talk regarding Savile's victims too - "Why now?", "looking for money" etc. There is a very simplistic outlook towards what child abuse survivors "should" feel or do, when there is a tangled up mess in their heads.

ceadaoin. · 11-03-2019 01:41AM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The documentary hinges in large part on the testimony from a self confessed master of deception whose own mother said deserves an oscar for lying.

This is the guy who people believe unconditionally. A self confessed liar? How stupid do you have to be to accept unconditionally and fully the word of a self confessed liar?

Yeah and Jackson sat on camera and said he only had 2 nosejobs and no other plastic surgery.

He obsessively shared a bed with young boys , 365 days straight with one of them. Coupled with all the other circumstancial evidence, Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Because Robson allegedly cheated on his girlfriend years ago? I mean, please, what a joke

fryup · 11-03-2019 01:44AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

James is utterly traumatised.

yes he is traumatised....because he's panicking cause he knows deep down this is one big charade and sooner or later they're going to be found out

*put them up against a tough interviewer and they'll implode:cool:

Gimme A Pound · 11-03-2019 01:47AM

fryup wrote: »

yes he is traumatised....because he's panicking cause he knows deep down this is one big charade and sooner or later they're going to be found out

No "I think", just "this is one big charade" as if it's a fact?

fin12 · 11-03-2019 01:57AM

fryup wrote: »

yes he is traumatised....because he's panicking cause he knows deep down this is one big charade and sooner or later they're going to be found out

*put them up against a tough interviewer and they'll implode:cool:

Who would be a good interviewer that would really grill them?

fryup · 11-03-2019 02:18AM

fin12 wrote: »

Who would be a good interviewer that would really grill them?

Piers Morgan, i know some hate him but he's the only one so far to put probing questions to the director of this farce

off the top of my head...BBC's Jeremy Paxman, Sky News's Jeremy Thompson, CNN's Wolf Blitzer

dd973 · 11-03-2019 02:27AM

''Farhkin ell, has he been at the kids again? He's gotta go the Grammy's soon the twat, someone find 'im a bird!''

...''Ere Brooke, you doin anything next week?...''

Andrew00 · 11-03-2019 02:46AM

Hollywood and the Vatican nothing but pesterfiles and molesters

Gimme A Pound · 11-03-2019 02:49AM

No response to my last question I see. I don't see an issue with expressing doubt - I may not agree, but that's opinions isn't it. However to state as a fact that this is entirely a charade - off the chart level of delusion.

But anyway, something else that struck me was when Wade was interviewed a few years back about his retraction, he was very adamant that it wasn't a repressed memory. A common occurrence for abuse survivors is repressed memories so that would have been an ideal go-to if it were all just a fabrication.

wakka12 · 11-03-2019 03:15AM

Cant believe people dont think he was a paedophile. Would you believe somebody you knew wasnt a paedophile if 5 boys accused him of abusing them?
Thats before you even think about the fact that he was a middle aged man who exclusively befriended young boys and seemed to stick to them like glue, bringing them everywhere, these boys were strangers why did he want to be friends with them so badly, how many adult men do you know who hang out with children like that? A normal adult cannot be emotionally sustained by the presence of very young children as their main source of friendship

Im so shocked at the amount of people who believe he wasnt a paedophile

If they were just doing it for money wouldnt you see more celebrities being accused of things liek this. Did the women who accused weinstein get any money out of it?

3rdDegree · 11-03-2019 03:25AM

wakka12 wrote: »

Cant believe people dont think he was a paedophile. Would you believe somebody you knew wasnt a paedophile if 5 boys accused him of abusing them?

I'm not sure it's a case of people thinking he wasn't a paedophile, I think a lot of people are just saying the argument (documentary) shouldn't be so one sided.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments