Micky Jackson in trouble again

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 6:29pm

retro:electro wrote: »

This is who you’re defending folks.

Why would any normal, rational minded person be in possession of such a book?

Not to mention the book, made by paedophiles, which Jackson had personally inscribed with how he wanted this childhood for his own children, which apparently features naked boys (in 90% of the images) posed spread-eagle where you can literally see everything. It sounds sickening and not something a normal person with no sexual interest in children would have at all

retro:electro · 29-01-2019 6:38pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Not to mention the book, made by paedophiles, which Jackson had personally inscribed with how he wanted this childhood for his own children, which apparently features naked boys (in 90% of the images) posed spread-eagle where you can literally see everything. It sounds sickening and not something a normal person with no sexual interest in children would have at all

All normal according to some posters here..

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 6:59pm

retro:electro wrote: »

All normal according to some posters here..

It's amazing how easily people are able to ignore what all the evidence points to when the person involved is a celebrity and someone they might admire. We all know the average Joe would never be given the benefit of the doubt in the face of so many red flags

fin12 · 29-01-2019 7:17pm

retro:electro wrote: »

... so he says while trying to infer on his behalf what was going on in his mind.
Do you even realise the irony of what you’re coming out with?

And just so we’re clear- it’s inappropriate for an adult to share a bed with any minor, girl or boy, that isn’t a sibling or a relative in some way. Never mind make a habit out of it and think it’s beautiful. Scary that even needs to be said but here we are.

You do realise that the majority of children who are sexually abused it’s from a family member.

retro:electro · 29-01-2019 7:19pm

Of course? Doesn’t everyone know that? But it’s easy to rationalise sleeping in the same bed as a minor if they are related to you. (And by that I mean brother or sister or parent) It’s not so easy when they’re a stranger who has sought you out for the purpose of his comfort.

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 7:21pm

fin12 wrote: »

You do realise that the majority of children who are sexually abused it’s from a family member.

Yes, and? Does that mean no other kind of abuse exists? aquaintance grooming and abuse also accounts for a significant number.

fin12 · 29-01-2019 7:26pm

My point is to say that a child should only sleep in a bed with a relative, does not mean they are save as they are more likely to be abused by a family member than anyone else.

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 7:30pm

fin12 wrote: »

My point is to say that a child should only sleep in a bed with a relative, does not mean they are save as they are more likely to be abused by a family member than anyone else.

But children might have a legitimate reason for sleeping in a bed with their parents or siblings. Who hasn't done that? The vast majority of kids sharing beds with close family members arent abused. So bed sharing in itself wouldn't be a red flag for abuse, unless it was continuing well beyond an appropriate age maybe, which it was in Jackson's case. I would imagine that statistically, it is safer for a child to share a bed with a close relation than it is to share a bed with an unrelated male

There is no reason whatsoever for a grown man who is unrelated to the child being so desperate to share a bed with them, well no reason except a nefarious one. Total red flag there.

retro:electro · 29-01-2019 7:31pm

My point is there’s nothing perverted about two siblings sharing a bed out of necessity. I’m not saying abuse cannot happen as a result of this but in and of itself it’s not perverse. It is perverse when a grown man living in a mansion would prefer to share a bed with a young boy when there’s a host of other bedrooms he could have stayed in, should he not want to be subject to allegations of impropriety.
Seriously, we all know a child is more likely to be abused by someone known to them. That’s not news.

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 7:35pm

retro:electro wrote: »

My point is there’s nothing perverted about two siblings sharing a bed out of necessity. I’m not saying abuse cannot happen as a result of this but in and of itself it’s not perverse. It is perverse when a grown man living in a mansion would prefer to share a bed with a young boy when there’s a host of other bedrooms he could have stayed in, should he not want to be subject to allegations of impropriety.
Seriously, we all know a child is more likely to be abused by someone known to them. That’s not news.

His own wife said that she gave up trying to sleep in the same bed as him because he always had a "friend" in there. I mean, it's beyond weird. People keep saying "but he was heterosexual, he couldn't have abused those boys"..what kind of heterosexual man prefers to share a bed with a child rather than his wife?

fin12 · 29-01-2019 7:37pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

His own wife said that she gave up trying to sleep in the same bed as him because he always had a "friend" in there. I mean, it's beyond weird. People keep saying "but he was heterosexual, he couldn't have abused those boys"..what kind of heterosexual man prefers to share a bed with a child rather than his wife?

He was asexual. He just got married to Lisa Marie as he was obsessed with her father and to appear to society as normal.

retro:electro · 29-01-2019 7:40pm

Some porn collection he had for someone who’s “asexual” :pac: :rolleyes:

showpony1 · 29-01-2019 7:42pm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/#255ac1c2640f

Read above article on this documentary - didn't realize it was that guy who used to be on MTV Wade Robson.
He is completely discredited in the article.

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 7:46pm

fin12 wrote: »

He was asexual. He just got married to Lisa Marie as he was obsessed with her father and to appear to society as normal.

As an aside, another of her husbands, Nicolas cage, was also obsessed with Elvis. Seems like she was seen as the ultimate trophy wife for those guys. Feel bad for her, she seems to have gone off the rails a bit lately too

Boggles · 29-01-2019 8:17pm

Here is a break down and explanation of what "porn" was found in Jackson's house.

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/27/has-child-pornography-ever-been-found-in-michael-jacksons-possession/

Puts quite the different slant on it.

Also Strangely the Polaroids which I never actually heard of during the trial, didn't appear to exist.

retro:electro · 29-01-2019 8:27pm

On the topic of his marriage to Lisa, I’ve no doubt his marriage was born from an image conscious desire to appear normal in public life due to pressures and questions about his sexuality. He clearly had no interest in her, or sexual inclination towards her. Again, master manipulator at play. He was able to cultivate whatever image he wanted the media to portray him as something he was not. He was no more into her than the man in the moon. Anyone who would prefer to have little boys in his marital bed rather than his new wife is by all accounts, a wrong one.

ceadaoin. · 29-01-2019 8:29pm

Boggles wrote: »

Here is a break down and explanation of what "porn" was found in Jackson's house.

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/27/has-child-pornography-ever-been-found-in-michael-jacksons-possession/

Puts quite the different slant on it.

Also Strangely the Polaroids which I never actually heard of during the trial, didn't appear to exist.

If they don't exist then why did the prosecution apply to introduce them into evidence with the other stuff? And why did Jackson's team acknowledge that they existed in their motion to have them disallowed, which I presume is what happened as they don't appear to have been mentioned during the trial? They still exist though

James Brown · 29-01-2019 9:11pm

foxy06 wrote: »

If I was letting our pre teen boys stay overnight in a grown mans house and this grown man will be sleeping in same room, most likely same bed, and his house is set up like a fun park to keep our boys and other boys entertained I would be told I was an idiot as this is obviously grooming for child abuse. I would probably be blamed for allowing it. But because it's Michael Jackson and he's had a few good songs then people don't want to see the bad side of him.

But sure he said he was bad. He even had a song about it.

professore · 30-01-2019 1:29am

fin12 wrote: »

How were they consenting adults, if it was rape?

He (Weinstein) hasn't been convicted of anything, just like MJ. He could well be acquitted. Would you then say all his accusers are horrible attention seekers? Grown female actresses. FFS. While small defenceless kids with no one to stand up for them are evil money grabbing publicity seekers? Please.

Don't get me wrong, I think Weinstein is guilty, and a monster, but Jackson is FAR worse.

Outlaw Pete · 30-01-2019 1:50am

Don't believe a word Robson has to say anyway.

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

8-10 · 30-01-2019 9:10am

professore wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I think Weinstein is guilty, and a monster, but Jackson is FAR worse.

Based on what?

I firmly believe MJ was set up by Chandler, Arviso and Tom Sneddon so I need some believable account of something happening before I think he’s comparable to Weinstein

He engaged in very inappropriate behaviour for sure, he seemed incredibly strange and misguided in his private life and the drugs he was taking from 99 to 05 didn’t help. Just not sure what he’s supposed to have done that’s illegal and hopefully this documentary clears that up.

Beechwoodspark · 30-01-2019 9:13am

Also don’t forget he was a big drug user for decades but kept that under wraps too. A devious and deviant character.

Sleeper12 · 30-01-2019 9:45am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Also don’t forget he was a big drug user for decades but kept that under wraps too. A devious and deviant character.

Jasus you'd hold that against him?

A huge portion of the country hides drink, pill or drug addiction to some degree. Most of these are high functioning in their day jobs

Boggles · 30-01-2019 9:52am

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If they don't exist then why did the prosecution apply to introduce them into evidence with the other stuff? And why did Jackson's team acknowledge that they existed in their motion to have them disallowed, which I presume is what happened as they don't appear to have been mentioned during the trial? They still exist though

Jackson's team didn't acknowledge that they existed, they asked WTF they were.

It's explained quite well in the link I posted.

Besides all the material shown above the prosecution’s January 18, 2005 motion also mentions two photographs allegedly found in the 1993 search. One is described as “a photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude [3]” (Jonathan Spence was one of Jackson’s young friends in the 1980s), the other is described as “a photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella; wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down [3]”.

These claims, and especially the claim about the alleged Spence photo, are sometimes used on various Internet forums and comment sections against Jackson as some major, bombshell evidence of his guilt, but in reality the prosecution never proved even the existence of these alleged photos, let alone introducing them to Court and giving the defense a chance to cross-examine them.

As you have seen above the parties can claim many things in motions but they are not always true or can be one-sidedly twisted and whatever claim they make they need to prove them in Court to be accepted as facts. Prosecution motions are just that: often biased, never proven, never cross-examined claims, theories and opinions by one of the parties. In actuality, in this case prosecution motions often included claims which were twisted or even turned out to be totally untrue in Court – some even refuted by the prosecution’s own witnesses.

This prosecution claimed these photos in this one motion but when they finally got to introduce their 1993 findings to the Court, after the Judge ruled on the admissibility of “prior bad acts” evidence in March 2005, they only introduced the art books found in the 1993 search that we have discussed above. After this one motion they never even mentioned these alleged photos again either in Court or in other motions requesting the introduction of items found in 1993. There is no evidence of their existence.

Please also consider that right after the raid of Jackson’s homes in 1993 the police stated that “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing” [2]. Moreover, when the prosecution tried to introduce testimony about Jonathan Spence on March 28, 2005, the Judge turned it down exactly because all the prosecution could offer regarding him were testimonies about the supposed “grooming” of Spence (at least that is how the prosecution called the fact that Jackson bought him gifts – as he did to almost everyone, young and old, he ever was friends with) [37]. That was all the evidence they could offer to the Court about Spence and that is why he was not allowed by the Judge to be introduced to the Court as one of Jackson’s alleged victims. A nude photo of Spence found in Jackson’s possession would have been just what the prosecution needed to be able to point to more than just “grooming” and be able to introduce him as an alleged victim, but they never produced any such photo. One has to wonder if this is indeed the bombshell evidence that it was turned into in Internet folklore why was it not used in Court by the prosecution to get Spence introduced as an alleged victim? Or at the very least why did not the prosecution fight tooth and nail to have it introduced to Court?
When Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau was asked about that alleged photo in a recent podcast by King Jordan Radio he said he had never even seen any such photo, so it apparently was never even shown to the defense – as you are obliged to do with any evidence that you attempt to introduce to Court as a prosecution.

For the record, Jonathan Spence never claimed any wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour by Jackson and he and his family still talk fondly of the entertainer.

Keep in mind that this prosecution was very zealous against Michael Jackson, throwing “everything but the kitchen sink” at him, but the only material “evidence” they could come up with in this case were art photography books, old nudist magazines and legal, heterosexual adult material. They spent days with presenting Jackson’s heterosexual adult magazines to the Court which puzzled the jury because they felt it was irrelevant. That the prosecution was forced to harp on such irrelevant evidence instead of real, damining evidence is a good indication that they did not really have any damining evidence.

Sleeper12 · 30-01-2019 10:29am

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson's team didn't acknowledge that they existed, they asked WTF they were.

It's explained quite well in the link I posted.

I know some are arguing otherwise but put very plainly, if the cops found any dodgy photos in 2013 they would have charged him with child pornography totally separate to the civil trial. Paying large sums of money to the child would not have had any bearing on the police charging him with child pornography. There is no way in the world that he had child pornography & the police wouldn't charge him.

Neyite · 30-01-2019 12:07pm

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson's team didn't acknowledge that they existed, they asked WTF they were.

It's explained quite well in the link I posted.

Not all child molesters keep images or dodgy material - Saville was squeaky clean on that front. But there's no doubt that he was a prolific abuser.

He told Louis Theroux that this is why he would never own a computer, because that ensured that he could never be implicated or accused of anything. Bit odd for someone who has nothing to hide to say.

Saville also cultivated the 'odd' persona so that the more visible of his actions could be dismissed as him being eccentric by those who didn't want to believe the victims. His persona and his Jim'll Fix It job was a passport of sorts into vulnerable people's lives.

Cosby is someone else who didn't appear to have any physical evidence against him only witness testimony. There didn't seem to be any porn or drugs or trophies of his aubse found. The only reason he was convicted was for the sheer volume of women that came forward. If Saville's victims came forward en-masse before he died a trial would likely have had a similar outcome to Cosby's.

But crucially, the first few victims of Cosby, Saville, R. Kelly were all dismissed as fantasists attempting to cash in on a famous person's wealth. This documentary might result in more victims of MJ to come forward and the sheer volume of similar stories might prove it do be true. Or maybe not.

Maybe there will never be enough testimonies to ever know for sure.

Irish Guitarist · 30-01-2019 12:55pm

For the people that think he's innocent here's a question. If your next door neighbour who was a really good dancer and was good at the old karaoke had a bouncy castle and a slide in his garden (despite having no kids) knocked at your door asking if your five year old son could come over and play before spending the night in the same bed as him would you agree to it? And to sweeten the deal imagine he'd been abused by his father and was now a real oddball with a 'childlike innocence' who wanted to heal the children of the world with his love or some bollocks. I mean who could say no to that offer?

showpony1 · 30-01-2019 1:09pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For the people that think he's innocent here's a question. If your next door neighbour who was a really good dancer and was good at the old karaoke had a bouncy castle and a slide in his garden (despite having no kids) knocked at your door asking if your five year old son could come over and play before spending the night in the same bed as him would you agree to it? And to sweeten the deal imagine he'd been abused by his father and was now a real oddball with a 'childlike innocence' who wanted to heal the children of the world with his love or some bollocks. I mean who could say no to that offer?

Anybody keeping count of how many times this analogy has been used in this thread?

retro:electro · 30-01-2019 1:11pm

Anyone keeping count of how many times it’s been answered?
Zero

8-10 · 30-01-2019 2:20pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For the people that think he's innocent here's a question. If your next door neighbour who was a really good dancer and was good at the old karaoke had a bouncy castle and a slide in his garden (despite having no kids) knocked at your door asking if your five year old son could come over and play before spending the night in the same bed as him would you agree to it? And to sweeten the deal imagine he'd been abused by his father and was now a real oddball with a 'childlike innocence' who wanted to heal the children of the world with his love or some bollocks. I mean who could say no to that offer?

Depends, is the neighbour well off and am I opportunistic and money grabbing with a history of making my kids lie for me to support false sexual assault allegations for monetary gain?

If so....yeah, offer sounds pretty good.

Flippyfloppy · 30-01-2019 2:23pm

8-10 wrote: »

Depends, is the neighbour well off and am I opportunistic and money grabbing with a history of making my kids lie for me to support false sexual assault allegations for monetary gain?

If so....yeah, offer sounds pretty good.

That’s risking real sexual abuse for financial gain.

Sleeper12 · 30-01-2019 2:29pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For the people that think he's innocent here's a question. If your next door neighbour who was a really good dancer and was good at the old karaoke had a bouncy castle and a slide in his garden (despite having no kids) knocked at your door asking if your five year old son could come over and play before spending the night in the same bed as him would you agree to it? And to sweeten the deal imagine he'd been abused by his father and was now a real oddball with a 'childlike innocence' who wanted to heal the children of the world with his love or some bollocks. I mean who could say no to that offer?

Here's one for you. Jackson didn't have to go knocking on anyone's door. The parents of these children shoved their children in his path

Leaving guilt or non guilt aside some of these parents aren't fit to have kids imo

Theboinkmaster · 30-01-2019 2:29pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

For the people that think he's innocent here's a question. If your next door neighbour who was a really good dancer and was good at the old karaoke had a bouncy castle and a slide in his garden (despite having no kids) knocked at your door asking if your five year old son could come over and play before spending the night in the same bed as him would you agree to it? And to sweeten the deal imagine he'd been abused by his father and was now a real oddball with a 'childlike innocence' who wanted to heal the children of the world with his love or some bollocks. I mean who could say no to that offer?

Doesn't prove he was a child molester. He was under investigation for years and on trial cleared of all charges due to lack of evidence.

8-10 · 30-01-2019 2:32pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

That’s risking real sexual abuse for financial gain.

Yeah I'd have to be a parent who's ok with that, sure. Do you think such people might exist?

fin12 · 30-01-2019 2:33pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Also don’t forget he was a big drug user for decades but kept that under wraps too. A devious and deviant character.

He had an addiction and you can blame his doctors and the people around him for that, his doctor was administering drugs to him that should only be given to someone when in hospital.

retro:electro · 30-01-2019 2:50pm

God he was so unfortunate. Kids being delivered to his bed that he didn’t want by opportunistic parents.. drugs being administered to him that he didn’t want by negligent doctors.. insurance claims being settled without his knowledge although signed by him.. porn thrown around the house despite being asexual..
What an unlucky soul.

:rolleyes:

valoren · 30-01-2019 3:23pm

Comparing Jackson with 'a next door neighbor' asking if your child can come for a sleep over doesn't equate. He was one of the most famous people on the planet. I think Jackson was the kind of person for whom the word No didn't apply. If he wanted to have sleep overs with specifically pre-pubescent boys then he was going to have sleep overs with prepubescent boys. From a staff perspective to deny him that might have meant your job. For a courted boy it meant the world that such a superstar, a predator hiding in plain sight, wanted to be their 'friend'. If right-minded parents who saw through the "I'm Petay Pan, chamone" front and prevented it, then there would have been other parents who enabled Jackson into getting what he wanted with the cognitive dissonance that while they knew it was wrong and weird that a grown man wanted to have sleepovers with kids they allowed it so as not to (a) give their son such a crushing disappointment coupled with (b) the idea that if there was any funny business then they could sue the deluded dope for millions. There was that transactional relationship between them all i.e. sure their son was sleeping over but they were minting it with gifts, access and luxuries.

retro:electro · 30-01-2019 3:24pm

But to play Devils advocate(ish) for a moment. Even if the victims did come from families who were opportunistic, sadistic, and didn’t really care about the welfare of their children. What makes you think those children still can’t be abused? The situation isn’t so simplistic that it can be divided into two opposing scenarios; either the parents were money grabbing tool bags who had no concern over where their children were, or Jackson was a very shrewd operator, often seeking out the kind of child who accused him so he could dismiss any objections or accusations as greed. Maybe it’s a blend of the two, personally I believe that was the case. Perpetrators frequently seek out children who are particularly trusting, who have broken comes or troubled backgrounds. Abducted in Plain Sight is a good doc to watch on Netflix and showcases how abusers can groom the whole family before they even realise what’s happening. Didn’t Jackson give Jordan’s mother free reign with his credit card? Again, manipulating and charming the whole family in order to achieve a certain goal.

professore · 30-01-2019 3:52pm

8-10 wrote: »

Based on what?

I firmly believe MJ was set up by Chandler, Arviso and Tom Sneddon so I need some believable account of something happening before I think he’s comparable to Weinstein

He engaged in very inappropriate behaviour for sure, he seemed incredibly strange and misguided in his private life and the drugs he was taking from 99 to 05 didn’t help. Just not sure what he’s supposed to have done that’s illegal and hopefully this documentary clears that up.

Let me play devil's advocate for a second time here.

Weinstein was set up by Asia Argento - someone herself accused of sexual abuse of a 17 year old, that her husband at the time paid off - and a few others. Most of the "accusations" against him are of consensual sex. There are some of rape, but sure what do you expect from money grabbing attention seeking actresses? It was a badge of honour and a sign you'd hit the big time to accuse him of raping you.

See how that works? He is a poor lost soul being accused by these horrible evil women.

But he's an ugly bastard so no one is going to rush to his defence, or the likes of Gary Glitter or Jimmy Savile, like they do with Jacko. Always said that being physically attractive is one of the biggest privileges in life and this proves it.

What's Jacko's favourite song? I'm forever blowing Bubbles !!! Seems that wasn't all he was blowing ....

ceadaoin. · 30-01-2019 3:58pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I know some are arguing otherwise but put very plainly, if the cops found any dodgy photos in 2013 they would have charged him with child pornography totally separate to the civil trial. Paying large sums of money to the child would not have had any bearing on the police charging him with child pornography. There is no way in the world that he had child pornography & the police wouldn't charge him.

They never claimed to have found "child pornography". They found a naked photo of a boy, and one semi naked, but nothing that could be considered illegal material. They simply wanted to introduce it into evidence as an example of inappropriate behaviour ie taking naked photos of boys. Some paedophiles are very careful to stay on the right side of the law when it comes to images. That's why they make and collect "art" books like the ones in Jackson's possession.

So the cops are lying in their motion then? Or they planted the photos?

ceadaoin. · 30-01-2019 4:08pm

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson's team didn't acknowledge that they existed, they asked WTF they were.

It's explained quite well in the link I posted.

"Two photographs seized in 1993, and we don't know who they are of or why they're there"

That's what the lawyer said. So they seem to be acknowledging that they were in fact seized from Neverland (or the Jackson compound, I can't remember which) in 1993. They aren't suggesting they were planted or anything like that which surely if they were they would mention that. Also, a member of staff claimed that they had previously found a photo matching the description , a Polaroid of a naked boy and was asked to destroy it (which he didn't) before the search even happened or the items were made public.

Anyway, your point was they don't exist but clearly they do.

Boggles · 30-01-2019 4:36pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

"Two photographs seized in 1993, and we don't know who they are of or why they're there"

That's what the lawyer said. So they seem to be acknowledging that they were in fact seized from Neverland (or the Jackson compound, I can't remember which) in 1993.

It was pretrial, nothing had been handed over.

He goes on to demand a

402 preliminary fact hearing

Which means all evidence has to be handed over and tested, among other things.

Thomas Mesereau was asked about that alleged photo in a recent podcast by King Jordan Radio he said he had never even seen any such photo, so it apparently was never even shown to the defense – as you are obliged to do with any evidence that you attempt to introduce to Court as a prosecution.

Mesereau was lead council for the defense.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They aren't suggesting they were planted or anything like that which surely if they were they would mention that.

How can they suggest something was planted that doesn't exist or they have at least ?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Also, a member of staff claimed that they had previously found a photo matching the description , a Polaroid of a naked boy and was asked to destroy it (which he didn't) before the search even happened or the items were made public.

Link?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Anyway, your point was they don't exist but clearly they do.

If they clearly existed they would have been entered as evidence in the Trial, they weren't.

If the trial judge allowed "girlie mags", etc entered as evidence then he was as sure as hell going to allow 2 Polaroid pictures depicting nude children in a trial about sexual abuse.

They didn't exist, and that's why you had the Prosecution Lawyer parading around with a copy of 'Jugs over 50' in front of a bemused jury and court room.

It was beyond farce.

ceadaoin. · 30-01-2019 4:44pm

Boggles wrote: »

It was pretrial, nothing had been handed over.

He goes on to demand a

Which means all evidence has to be handed over and tested, among other things.

Mesereau was lead council for the defense.

How can they suggest something was planted that doesn't exist or they have at least ?

Link?

If they clearly existed they would have been entered as evidence in the Trial, they weren't.

If the trial judge allowed "girlie mags", etc entered as evidence then he was as sure as hell going to allow 2 Polaroid pictures depicting nude children in a trial about sexual abuse.

They didn't exist, and that's why you had the Prosecution Lawyer parading around with a copy of 'Jugs over 50' in front of a bemused jury and court room.

It was beyond farce.

Ok so the prosecution entered imaginary evidence on their court filings? Like what would even be the point of that if they didn't have them in their possession?

Boggles · 30-01-2019 4:46pm

Neyite wrote: »

But crucially, the first few victims of Cosby, Saville, R. Kelly were all dismissed as fantasists attempting to cash in on a famous person's wealth.

I'd say crucially it is without any doubt that the people who accused Jackson were criminals who fabricated badly concocted stories to extort money form him.

Neyite wrote: »

This documentary might result in more victims of MJ to come forward and the sheer volume of similar stories might prove it do be true. Or maybe not.

I personally think the document will shine a massive light on Robson and his actual motivations, it's all ready beginning.

Irish Guitarist · 30-01-2019 4:48pm

Still no one has answered the question of whether they'd let their son sleep in the same bed as a grown man.

Boggles · 30-01-2019 4:48pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ok so the prosecution entered imaginary evidence on their court filings? Like what would even be the point of that if they didn't have them in their possession?

I have no idea, I could speculate if you want.

But the more pertinent question is why were they not entered into evidence?

What do you think?

also if you could provide a link for this please.

Also, a member of staff claimed that they had previously found a photo matching the description , a Polaroid of a naked boy and was asked to destroy it (which he didn't) before the search even happened or the items were made public.

Boggles · 30-01-2019 4:49pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Still no one has answered the question of whether they'd let their son sleep in the same bed as a grown man.

No. But I don't see how that is relevant?

Neyite · 30-01-2019 5:04pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Still no one has answered the question of whether they'd let their son sleep in the same bed as a grown man.

The man could be the richest man on the planet and my son's biggest hero ever but I'd never allow it.

8-10 · 30-01-2019 5:15pm

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Still no one has answered the question of whether they'd let their son sleep in the same bed as a grown man.

I did, I suggested a scenario where I could see it be allowed to happen

randd1 · 30-01-2019 5:18pm

How the **** can anyone not think this utter freak was a sick paedophile?

This is a man who has the faculties to organise and choreography huge groups of people, write or co-write numerous songs, give interviews occasionally, and get married, yet not have the faculties to know sharing your bed with a child is wrong? Are people nuts?

And then he builds a funfair in his back garden. What, was the sweets in the back of the van trick not that obvious that he had to build a child attraction beacon? Come on kids come over and have fun in my fantasy land.

He was a sick predator, pure and simple.

Micky Jackson in trouble again

Comments