Micky Jackson in trouble again

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:23pm

Boggles wrote: »

Extensive?

2 books out of a million.

Cool.

They went through a million books? How long did it take?

Is there any photos of the library of a million books they went through to find the two?

Hoboo · 13-03-2019 12:23pm

Boggles wrote: »

Extensive?

2 books out of a million.

Cool.

2 books of thousands of photos. That's extensive.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 12:27pm

Hoboo wrote: »

2 books of thousands of photos. That's extensive.

There were more than two books.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:28pm

The Nal wrote: »

There were more than two books.

Actually yeah, looking at the list. Where is the 2 in a million coming from.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 12:29pm

Hoboo wrote: »

2 books of thousands of photos.

Jaysus, they most of been fair big books.

Hoboo · 13-03-2019 12:32pm

Boggles wrote: »

Jaysus, they most of been fair big books.

Or small photos.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:32pm

Boggles wrote: »

Jaysus, they most of been fair big books.

Ha I dunno, two rr Martins and you'd be there. And they must be one of the most common books in the world. So not outlandish

Alrigghtythen · 13-03-2019 12:32pm

Would you be cool with your father alarming his bedroom and inviting the children round?

Boggles · 13-03-2019 12:33pm

Hoboo wrote: »

Or small photos.

Microscopic.

Was there a microscope found beside them?

Boggles · 13-03-2019 12:38pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ha I dunno, two rr Martins and you'd be there. And they must be one of the most common books in the world. So not outlandish

Ahem.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

You're arguing your defence of Jackson with the wrong person. I don't agree what he did was right, we disagree. I don't know why your so insistent on pushing it all away from him. But please leave me out of it. Cheers.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 12:38pm

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Would you be cool with your father alarming his bedroom and inviting the children round?

And them accessing hardcore porn.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:39pm

Boggles wrote: »

Microscopic.

Was there a microscope found beside them?

I feel like you've never seen a book before

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 12:40pm

Boggles wrote: »

Ahem.

Apologies will do

Boggles · 13-03-2019 12:40pm

The Nal wrote: »

And them accessing hardcore porn.

Are you familiar with the 2005 trial?

You do know they claimed to have accessed porn that hadn't even been published yet?

The Nal · 13-03-2019 12:49pm

Boggles wrote: »

Are you familiar with the 2005 trial?

You do know they claimed to have accessed porn that hadn't even been published yet?

Yes. Very. They found Gavin Arvizos fingerprints on Jackos porn mags. Jacko kept porn in a suitcase in his bedroom.

joeguevara · 13-03-2019 12:51pm

Apparently the police found a small pair of denim trousers in the private bedroom. Early reports are suggesting they are Billys jeans!

Kevin Finnerty · 13-03-2019 12:53pm

Taxi for Joe! :-)

Boggles · 13-03-2019 1:07pm

The Nal wrote: »

Yes. Very. They found Gavin Arvizos fingerprints on Jackos porn mags.

Really?

It was one porn mag, a mag that was presented to Avizo during the Grand Jury, one of the grand jurors asked why no one was wearing gloves while the "evidence" was been passed around.

It wasn't until after the Grand Jury that the mag was tested for finger prints.

But you know all that because "yes, very".

It also transpired at the trial that 2 brothers were basically "brats" who ran riot and rooted into everything, Jackson caught them one day with some "porn", took it off them and gave out to them. They also use to bring their own "porn" into Neverland. More salient fact would be one of the brothers admitted on the stand he was lying.

Barnes and Culkin testified under oath that they weren't aware of any "girly mags" left "lying around".

But sure this has been done to death on thread all ready, round and round we go.

frosty123 · 13-03-2019 1:29pm

basically those of you who are saying he's guilty are basing it on the mud sticks argument

well mud sticks doesn't hold up in a court of law

The Nal · 13-03-2019 1:49pm

How many people claiming his innocence have actually watched the documentary? All of it.

These lads are either telling the truth or need to get into Hollywood. Brando levels of method acting if theyre lying.

frosty123 · 13-03-2019 1:52pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they're good liars, but they're not that good

tylercheribini · 13-03-2019 1:53pm

The Nal wrote: »

How many people claiming his innocence have actually watched the documentary? All of it.

These lads are either telling the truth or need to get into Hollywood. Brando levels of method acting if theyre lying.

The mothers, wives and siblings also.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 1:57pm

The Nal wrote: »

These lads are either telling the truth or need to get into Hollywood. Brando levels of method acting if theyre lying.

tylercheribini wrote: »

The mothers

Well Wades mother did say that the boy could win an Oscar for lying.

tylercheribini · 13-03-2019 2:02pm

Boggles wrote: »

The Nal wrote: »

These lads are either telling the truth or need to get into Hollywood. Brando levels of method acting if theyre lying.

tylercheribini wrote: »

The mothers

Well Wades mother did say that the boy could win an Oscar for lying.

He is truly wasting his considerable talent so.

marklazarcovic · 13-03-2019 2:05pm

This thread is mind boggling, people looking for 100% proof of abuse otherwise no,he only slept in the bed with them totally innocently,his only actions were because he loved children, could never hurt them.

Forget everything else, everything,he would never do those things,EVERYONE else that says otherwise,over 20 years,they have all been lying too.

Only MJ is truthful.

Yes,that's the logical answer they are sticking with,and even if 25 victims come forward,they will stick to their guns.

Mind boggling.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 2:14pm

marklazarcovic wrote: »

This thread is mind boggling, people looking for 100% proof of abuse otherwise no

I don't think anyone is TBF.

As has been stated several times all ready, just one credible accuser would do, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward.

tylercheribini · 13-03-2019 2:20pm

Boggles wrote: »

marklazarcovic wrote: »

This thread is mind boggling, people looking for 100% proof of abuse otherwise no

I don't think anyone is TBF.

As has been stated several times all ready, just one credible accuser would do, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward.

Five accusers so far, all lying of course. What figure will it have to be to reach critical mass?

8-10 · 13-03-2019 2:26pm

marklazarcovic wrote: »

This thread is mind boggling, people looking for 100% proof of abuse otherwise no,he only slept in the bed with them totally innocently,his only actions were because he loved children, could never hurt them.

Forget everything else, everything,he would never do those things,EVERYONE else that says otherwise,over 20 years,they have all been lying too.

Only MJ is truthful.

Yes,that's the logical answer they are sticking with,and even if 25 victims come forward,they will stick to their guns.

Mind boggling.

No, that's a completely disingenuous portrayal of what many of us are saying. You either don't understand the arguments being made or you are willfully choosing to ignore them to try and further your own point.

Theboinkmaster · 13-03-2019 2:27pm

tylercheribini wrote: »

Five accusers so far, all lying of course. What figure will it have to be to reach critical mass?

I'm only aware of 4 and all of them are proven liars, lack credibility and money grabbing.

Just one credible accuser would do, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward - as poster above says.

Theboinkmaster · 13-03-2019 2:33pm

The Nal wrote: »

Yes. Very.

I don't think you are as otherwise you'd know that trial was a complete farce with the accusers lacking any credibility whatsoever.

Their history with JC Penny security etc. proves that without question.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 2:41pm

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think anyone is TBF.

As has been stated several times all ready, just one credible accuser would do, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward.

So, in order to meet your standard, an accuser would need to come forward and tell their story without seeking any kind of compensation.

What incentive is there, assuming there are genuine victims out there, to come forward? They will be facing a legal team they won't be able to match, they may face death threats from Jackson's less stable fans, portions of the media will be hostile and a huge portion of the internet will be hostile.

Why would anyone bring that on themselves (and not seek any compensation)?

Even if someone did so, there would still be Jackson fans saying "well he may not be suing, but he'll make plenty from the interviews" or even "well if it's true, why isn't he suing?"

There's no incentive for anyone who wants to leave that portion of their life behind to come forward.

One big reason people do come forward is to ensure no one else gets hurt, and that's not relevant here.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 2:44pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward - as poster above says.

I feel his sister had more to lose than gain when she accused him.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 2:48pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So, in order to meet your standard, an accuser would need to come forward and tell their story without seeking any kind of compensation.

It's hardly my standard. It's not like it's a completely mental notion that it is so farcical that even the mere mention of it should be met with scorn.

Also very important, I said "sole" reason was not compensation.

The Nal · 13-03-2019 2:51pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

One big reason people do come forward is to ensure no one else gets hurt, and that's not relevant here.

Well it kind of is. It may mean more people (if there are more) can come forward and shed themselves of the past.

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I feel his sister had more to lose than gain when she accused him.

Yeah losing her life. Her husband was a total nutjob. I wouldn't give her take on things any degree of credibility in fairness.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 2:53pm

The Nal wrote: »

Yeah losing her life. Her husband was a total nutjob. I wouldn't give her take on things any degree of credibility in fairness.

Unfortunately for me their all nut jobs, including Michael.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 2:53pm

Boggles wrote: »

It's hardly my standard. It's not like it's a completely mental notion that it is so farcical that even the mere mention of it should be met with scorn.

Also very important, I said "sole" reason was not compensation.

Why can't these things both be true?

1. Wade is a pretty ****ty person out to make a quick buck

2. Wade was abused by Jackson as a child

I think that's a fairly likely scenario. I don't need people to have unimpeachable impeccable moral standards to believe them.

I don't even need them to have completely consistent stories about abuse that happened when they were children. I told you my own story of sexual assault, my account of it probably vary slightly if you asked me in 2010, 2013, 2017 and today. It's even possible I'd misremember some details. But I know with 100% certainty that I was assaulted.

And if that guy was a millionaire, I'd sure the b0llocks off him.

Hoboo · 13-03-2019 2:55pm

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think anyone is TBF.

As has been stated several times all ready, just one credible accuser would do, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward.

Ensure the truth about a seriel pedophile is known, and his legacy isn't one of nice guy who loved kids but rather one of groomer, predator and sickening molester.

Same reasons most victims go public.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 2:59pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Why can't these things both be true?

1. Wade is a pretty ****ty person out to make a quick buck

2. Wade was abused by Jackson as a child

I never suggested they couldn't be.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don't even need them to have completely consistent stories about abuse that happened when they were children. I told you my own story of sexual assault, my account of it probably vary slightly if you asked me in 2010, 2013, 2017 and today. It's even possible I'd misremember some details. But I know with 100% certainty that I was assaulted.
.

But would you claim under oath that you were assaulted 100s of times?

kunst nugget · 13-03-2019 3:02pm

Boggles wrote: »

But would you claim under oath that you were assaulted 100s of times?

Jesus, just... fúcking hell. Is this really what this thread has sunk to?

airy fairy · 13-03-2019 3:08pm

Boggles wrote: »

I never suggested they couldn't be.

But would you claim under oath that you were assaulted 100s of times?

Wtf?

blanch152 · 13-03-2019 3:15pm

tylercheribini wrote: »

Five accusers so far, all lying of course. What figure will it have to be to reach critical mass?

http://dailycannon.com/2019/03/how-many-accusations-do-we-need-before-we-stop-worshiping-ronaldo/

An interesting question. There are now five women accusing Ronaldo of rape according to this article. Yet there are no threads on After Hours about the hero-worship of him. When you think that he is still playing and still creating headlines about his football exploits (a magnificent performance last night, by the way), surely that is much more relevant than whatever a dead man did?

The truth is we have an ambivalent relationship with our heroes. Sometimes the mainstream media can separate the man from the art (Bowie, Presley, Ronaldo), sometime it can't (Jackson, Glitter). Who decides who deserves villification and who deserves an excuse?

Sometimes we ordinary punters agree, sometimes we don't. I am horrified by what Michael Jackson the man appears to have done but I am still amazed at what Michael Jackson the artist has done. I can separate the two as I have done for Bowie and Presley before him. Strangely, I find it more difficult with Glitter and Ronaldo, presumably because they are still alive and still around to be brought to justice. I can understand why others feel differently too.

I also don't think that there are easy answers. I don't see anyone on here who is defending Jackson as totally innocent, neither do I see anyone who wouldn't acknowledge at least something of his artistic genius. We are all on a continuum, rather than in opposing camps.

Rather than dissecting who said what, when and where and their credibility in relation to Jackson, a more interesting discussion would be around how and why people react differently to these things.

Boggles · 13-03-2019 3:20pm

blanch152 wrote: »

http://dailycannon.com/2019/03/how-many-accusations-do-we-need-before-we-stop-worshiping-ronaldo/
An interesting question. There are now five women accusing Ronaldo of rape according to this article.

I don't think we need to have a debate on it at all TBH.

If Ronaldo is tried in court and is found guilty of raping anyone he should go to prison.

KikiLaRue · 13-03-2019 3:27pm

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think we need to have a debate on it at all TBH.

If Ronaldo is tried in court and is found guilty of raping anyone he should go to prison.

The man who assaulted me was never convicted. Most of the priests who abused children were never convicted.

If your position is that you refuse to accept any assault that didn't result in a conviction didn't happen, you must be absolutely outraged on behalf of the Catholic Church.

marklazarcovic · 13-03-2019 3:38pm

Boggles wrote: »

I don't think anyone is TBF.

As has been stated several times all ready, just one credible accuser would do, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward.

Abuse victims generally have messed up lives(not all) ,so they will not look credible from the outside ,(drugs,alcohol, trouble with the law,not having normal relationship's) list goes on,that's the damage it does.

It's very easy to call them not credible when they are probably looking for money as compensation,but what else is there for them? They will never know how their lives would have planned out if they were not abused,what might have been, and they can be 'fixed' ..

I'd do exactly the same if I could,get as much money as possible and live the happiest life possible paid for by the cnut who abused me.

I've no agenda against MJ ,I wish it were not true simply because that means he did not abuse a load of kids,I'd prefer that reality everytime.

That's just my take,I've known abuse,know many who were abused,many have taken their own lives because of it,but it gets blamed on drugs or alcohol,not the cause of them escaping through drugs or alcohol.

I don't want sympathy,or tip toes around me because of it,I've done the whole treatment thing for years but it didn't help me,I helped me, I consider myself fortunate because I didn't like drugs or alcohol, otherwise I'd not be here either. But it haunts every aspect of my life,from relationships to belief in my own abilities,took 20 years to accept it happened even though I knew it did.

Every person is different,experiences differ,as does recovery,if that's possible.

This has turned into a bit of a spiel apologies.

hetuzozaho · 13-03-2019 4:01pm

Yes it's so difficult to prove this kind of abuse.

In my opinion though the setting up of nine year olds is child abuse for me. And that seems to be in the Jackson defense.

tylercheribini · 13-03-2019 4:02pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I'm only aware of 4 and all of them are proven liars, lack credibility and money grabbing.

Just one credible accuser would do, one accuser whose sole reason for coming forward is not financial reward - as poster above says.

The church used the exact same smear tactics against abuse victims when they were dragged through the courts.

Theboinkmaster · 13-03-2019 4:16pm

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I feel his sister had more to lose than gain when she accused him.

Latoya?! you're fvcking kidding right?

Theboinkmaster · 13-03-2019 4:19pm

tylercheribini wrote: »

The church used the exact same smear tactics against abuse victims when they were dragged through the courts.

I think there were a lot more than 4 accusers against the church :rolleyes:

tylercheribini · 13-03-2019 4:26pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

tylercheribini wrote: »

The church used the exact same smear tactics against abuse victims when they were dragged through the courts.

I think there were a lot more than 4 accusers against the church :rolleyes:

Again referring to my earlier post, to all the nay-sayers, what is the precise figure of accusers to be reached before they can be believed? What arbitrary number? I am genuinely intrigued.

Jerichoholic · 13-03-2019 4:27pm

Lads you're making a show of yourselves blindly defending this monster. You're coming across on the same level of this absolute cretin:

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments