Micky Jackson in trouble again

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Did he actually do this? He was never convicted of this. They raided his home. Seized computers but found no child porn of any kind.

Well they found a naked photo of a child thought be one particular "friend" of his. And a couple of books common in nambla type circles featuring naked boys that aren't illegal but skirt the line.

The two books were The Boy: A Photographic Essay and Boys Will Be Boys. These books are classic examples of the type of materials many pedophiles own according to Bill Dworin, a 34-year veteran of the LAPD who has investigated more than 4,000 sexual exploitation cases. “Pedophiles will frequently have this material available because they can obtain it legally, it’s not illegal to possess”. [3].

The Boy: A Photographic Essay is a book compiled by two known pedophiles, Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew, under the pseudonyms Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson. More of their history can be found in this article.

Swithinbank and Nelson collated photos of boys, mainly from pedophile photographers Hajo Ortil, Karel Egermeier, Jos Le Doare, Jacques Simonot and others, and created The Boy. Around ten percent of the photos in the book are of nude boys, many of them with their buttocks or genitals displayed. The front cover features a naked boy with his buttocks exposed, wistfully staring into the ocean. This gives you an idea of the book’s intended audience.

In Boys Will Be Boys around ninety percent of the boys are naked. The worst images are far too lewd for us to publish here, and could possibly be illegal in many countries (reaching up to 6 on the COPINE scale). We talked with someone who has seen the book, who said, “This book is clearly targeted at pedophiles.

No images of child abuse though

But the porn he showed the kids to groom them was normal adult porn magazines and such. Allegedly

ceadaoin. wrote:

But the porn he showed the kids to groom them was normal adult porn magazines and such. Allegedly

As I said none of this was proved in court. The 2nd case the child lied through his teeth as did the parents. I don't think anyone believed them. The jury who heard all of the evidence didn't believe them. That family were low life's. No one can deny that

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't think you can even say allegedly once he's found not guilty. Allegedly is for before & during a trial. After the not guilty the alleged things are deemed not to be true. Do we still say Paddy Jackson allegedly raped that girl? We don't because a court of law has dealt with it & found him not guilty.

The court did not find that he showed porn to the boy. The court dealt with all of this already. Now years later you know better than the jury that heard & saw the evidence. They didn't read half truths in tabloid papers.

Pardon my ignorance in the misuse of words .
At least you've clarified it for me and I won't make that mistake again I'm sure ..

I never said I know better than the jury, I gave my opinion and asked a question , a reasonable question .

And judge , jury , public opinion aside , Michael Jackson was not innocent , IMO .
At the very least he was guilty of grooming , again imo , which I'm entitled to , the same as you and everyone else .

Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean we all have to shut up and agree with the verdict.

retro:electro wrote:

Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean we all have to shut up and agree with the verdict.

Well if it were an Irish case or the rugby case in the North you'd most likely be banned from boards for claiming that someone found not guilty is guilty. Boards can be sued for comments like this. If your identity was known you can be sued too.

The law in Ireland, UK & US is anyone found not guilty, legally has the presumption of innocence.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't believe this to be true. I don't suppose you have any links to this?

I do remember jury members saying afterwards that they brought the wrong case. In other words they believe there might be something there with other boys but this case was a scum family out for money. They were pretty certain that this was a fabricated case when talking to the press.

It's not uncommon for jury members to discuss the case with the media in the states. I haven't noticed it in other countries. I wonder if they are forbidden in Ireland.

https://www.today.com/popculture/2-jurors-say-they-regret-jacksons-acquittal-wbna8880663

“The law of the land” doesn’t apply here when speaking about accusations made in a different country, never mind the fact he is ten years dead. If you believe my comments are unjust then report them and stop trying to intimidate people into silence. You’re clutching.

List of all the adult material found in the Neverland raid and used in evidence.
Talk about clutching at straws,
All straight porn, all women. Michael openly admitted it was all his.
Most was in safes, or lock boxes under key. They contained only fingerprints of Jackson
This guy was married, had many GF's, had these abuse claims come from women it would be more believable .
The guy was a normal straight male. His list of visited adult sites turned out to be all women related sites also. This left the prosecution in the rather embarrassing position of trying to build a case of child molestation against a man for whom the only “evidence” they had was issues of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse, Barely Legal, and the like



1 E X H I B I T S

2 FOR IN

3 PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.

4 471 Photo of female image 3711
5 472 Photo of female image 3711
6 473 Photo of female image 3711
7 474 Photo of female image 3711
8 475 Photo of female image 3711
9 476 Hustler centerfold,
10 August 1992 3711
11 477 Playboy centerfold, Miss October 3711
12 478 Registration card for
13 briefcase 3711
14 479 Playboy centerfold, Miss November 3711
15 480 Playboy centerfold,
16 Miss March 3711
17 481 Hustler centerfold, June 1993 3711
18 482 Page 28 from “G-Spot”
19 article 3711
20 483 Playboy centerfold, unknown date 3711
21 484 Penthouse Page No. 153-154 3711
22 485 Centerfold, Miss May 3711
23 486 Penthouse, Page 8 3711
24 487 Penthouse centerfold 3711
25 488 Playboy centerfold 3711
26 489 Penthouse centerfold 3711
27 490 Penthouse, August 1991 3711
28 491 Penthouse centerfold 3711

1 E X H I B I T S

2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.

4 492 Club International centerfold 3711
5 493 Penthouse, double page 6/211 3711
6 494 Penthouse centerfold 3711
7 495 Penthouse, May 1992 3711
8 496 Hustler, Centerfold Special Holiday Honey 1991 3711
9 497 Penthouse centerfold 3711
10 498 Penthouse centerfold 3711
11 499 Penthouse, November 1991,
501 Playboy Magaine, Centerfold Miss November, SBSO 31
502 Playboy Nagazine, Centerfold Miss February (Not same:
503 Playboy Magazine, Centerfold Miss December, SBSO #3
504 Al Golstein’s 100 Best Adult Videos Advertisement, SBSO
505 Playboy Magazine, Centerfold SBSO #31722
506 Hustler Magazine Cover, May 1992, SBSO #317BBB
508 Page from Unknown Magazine, SBSO #317CCC
509 Brown Paper Envelope, SBSO #317F
510 Stiff Dick for Lynn Magazine (In Notebook), SBSO #317
511 Barely Legal Magazine, SBSO #3171
512 Just Legal Magazine, (Premier Issue) (In Notebook), SBSO
513 Finally Legal Magazine (In Notebook), SBSO #317L
514 Playboy Magazine, February 1993 (In Notebook), SBSO #317M
515 Hustler Magazine, Barely Legal (In Notebook), SBSO #3170
516 Playboy Magazine, December 1994 (In Notebook), SBSO #317P
517 Playboy Magazine, May 1994 (In Notebook), SBSO #317Q
518 Hustler Magazine, Barely Legal (In Notebook), SBSO #317R
519 Penthouse Magazine (In Notebook), SBSO #317S
520 Visions of Fantasy Magazine, A Hard Rock Affair (In Notebook), SBSO #3171
521 Visions of Fantasy Magazine, Sam Jose’s Black Starlett (In Notebook), SBSO
522 Double Dicking Caroline Magazine (In Notebook) SBSO #317V
523 Big Tits and a Hard Stud Magazine
524 Hustler Magazine, sBSO #317X
525 “The Second Female G-Spot” Article (In Notebook) SBSO #317BB
526 File Folder Title PRN, SBSBO #317DDD
527 File Folder Titled, “Thank You” SBSO #317EEE
528 Celebrity Skin Magazine (In Notebook) SBSO #317FFF

4 531 Oui, March 1998 in binder 3701
5 532 Over 50, Volume 5, #9, 1996 in binder 3700
6 533 XX rated, April 1995; XX
7 Close Up, April 1995 in binder 3701
8 534 Just 18, Volume 4,
9 Issue No. 10 3700
10 535 Plumpers centerfold 3700
11 536 Hustler, August 1992 in binder 3700
12 537 Hustler, April 1998
13 (No cover) in binder 3699
14 538 Penthouse, March 1992 in binder 3699
15 539 Juggs, June 1996
16 in binder 3699
17 540 44 Plus, June 1996 in binder 3699
18 541 Plumpers, May 1996
19 in binder 3698
20 542 Club International, March 1998 in binder 3698
21
543 Live Young Girls, September
22 2003 in binder 3701
23 544 Finally Legal, July 2003 in notebook 3702
24 545 Finally Legal Freshman Class
25 Orgy, August 2002 in binder 3702
26 546 Purely 18, October 2002 3703 in binder
27 547 Purely 18, December 2002
28 in binder 3703

1 E X H I B I T S

2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.
3 548 Tight, November 2002
4 in binder 3703
5 549 Hawk, November 2002 in binder 3704
6 550 Hawk, January 2003
7 in binder 3704
8 551 Live Young Girls, June 2003 in binder 3704
9 554 Girlfriends in binder 3709
10 555 Live Young Girls in binder 3709
11 556 Parade 3709
12 557 Finally Legal, February 2003
13 in binder 3710
14 558 Girls of Barely Legal in binder 3710
15 559 Hawk, February 2003 in binder 3710
16 560 Girlfriends, Special Ediitons
17 in binder 3711
18 563 White binder containing The Girls of Penthouse, August
19 2003 in binder 3708
20 564 White binder containing Barely Legal, July 200
21 in binder 3708
24 Gallery 5/2002 3708
25 580 Binder containing Playboy
26 Couples Volume 2, Issue 2 3707
27 584 Original evidence bag 3707
28 3602
1 E X H I B I T S
2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.
4 585 White binder containing Barely Legal, Anniversary
5 2002 3707
6 586 Original evidence bag 3705
7 587 White binder containing Naughty Neighbors, December
15 317-O, Hustler Barely Legal 3621 3643

Gwynplaine wrote: »

If they ever make a biopic, who will they get to play him?

Sergio Corte

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yeah I figured as much. The two jury members that changed their minds did so while pushing their own book story.

"the jurors announced their turnaround Monday as they began publicizing book deals."

They are a bad as the child's father

We’ll add the two ex jurors to the list of those conspiring against Michael so, alongside the various abused children, their parents, several filmmakers and the state of California.

retro:electro wrote:

We’ll add the two ex jurors to the list of those conspiring against Michael so, alongside the various abused children, their parents, several filmmakers and the state of California.

Ah no. Not conspiring. The two jury members had a book. They are in it for the money. The two liars in the new movie are also in it for the money. They have been trying to get money from Jackson estate for a few years now.

I'd feel more comfortable if even one accuser over the years wasn't looking for money.

No one with money accused him either. The rich child actors not only didn't accuse him but right up to today they defend Jackson.

So breaking it down. Wealthy people don't accuse him & don't want money from him. Poor people accuse him & also want large sums of money. The two liars wanted something like a billion from his estate a few years ago.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah no. Not conspiring. The two jury members had a book. They are in it for the money. The two liars in the new movie are also in it for the money. They have been trying to get money from Jackson estate for a few years now.

I'd feel more comfortable if even one accuser over the years wasn't looking for money.

No one with money accused him either. The rich child actors not only didn't accuse him but right up to today they defend Jackson.

So breaking it down. Wealthy people don't accuse him & don't want money from him. Poor people accuse him & also want large sums of money. The two liars wanted something like a billion from his estate a few years ago.

Or, he didn't go after the high profile kids who happen to be wealthy because it's useful to him have someone in the public eye who could defend him. Abusers and groomers know exactly what they're doing.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

And yet he was found not guilty.

They raided his ranch and found no child porn & no gay porn. They took his computers & nothing. No fragments of child porn on his hard drive. Absolutely nothing. This would be extremely unlikely for a paedophile not to have child porn on the phone or pc. No history of him visiting child or gay porn sites.

It's images of child abuse, not "child porn". Disgusting phrase.

Yet he was in possession of naked photos of children and books that are collected by paedophiles, one of which consists of pretty graphic nudity of underage boys. Again, only boys, just like all his special friends. Pretty damning when considered with all the other "not right" things. Its not that surprising to me that a rich and powerful man with a staff willing to enable, cover up and dispose of anything and with access to multiple huge storage units full of stuff was able to cover his tracks.

I'm not going to change my mind. In my opinion, he is guilty of what he was accused of by all those kids and it couldn't be more obvious. It's no wonder child abuse is so endemic when so many people are unable to see the clear signs of grooming and abuse or see them but actively downplay and defend them.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's images of child abuse, not "child porn". Disgusting phrase.

Yet he was in possession of naked photos of children and books that are collected by paedophiles, one of which consists of pretty graphic nudity of underage boys. Again, only boys, just like all his special friends. Pretty damning when considered with all the other "not right" things. Its not that surprising to me that a rich and powerful man with a staff willing to enable, cover up and dispose of anything and with access to multiple huge storage units full of stuff was able to cover his tracks.

I'm not going to change my mind. In my opinion, he is guilty of what he was accused of by all those kids and it couldn't be more obvious. It's no wonder child abuse is so endemic when so many people are unable to see the clear signs of grooming and abuse or see them but actively downplay and defend them.

Sorry the cops have been trying for years to get Michael Jackson, if he was such a prolific pedophile why can’t they find the evidence. It’s a witch hunt against a man who just cause he didn’t live as society says u should oh he must be a pedophile. I don’t see others like Kevin spacey or Harvey Winsteins wealth protected them from their crimes. So his wealths got nothing to do with it. The man is innocent that’s why they can’t bring a solid case against him.

retro:electro wrote: »

People from dysfunctional families can still be abused. It actually makes them more likely to suffer abuse and it’s highly likely that Jackson considered this when selecting children for grooming. The alleged greed of the parents is not a defence of Jackson, and a professional groomer would target the kind of child who accused Jackson, with difficult backgrounds whose families objections could be dismissed as shakedowns.
He may have been “innocent” in nature but he wasn’t intellectually compromised. He knew right from wrong, and only people who have a sexual interest in children think there’s nothing wrong with sharing a bed with little boys.

He was not “innocent in nature”. I don’t know why ppl assume that. His fake voice or what?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah no. Not conspiring. The two jury members had a book. They are in it for the money. The two liars in the new movie are also in it for the money. They have been trying to get money from Jackson estate for a few years now.

I'd feel more comfortable if even one accuser over the years wasn't looking for money.

No one with money accused him either. The rich child actors not only didn't accuse him but right up to today they defend Jackson.

So breaking it down. Wealthy people don't accuse him & don't want money from him. Poor people accuse him & also want large sums of money. The two liars wanted something like a billion from his estate a few years ago.

Ya exactly why would Macauley Culkin stay quiet all these years? He divorced his own parents for f*ck sake so I think if someone was doing wrong against him or others he wouldn’t stay quiet.

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Why , allegedly , show the young boys pornography at all , ever ?
Was it to excite them and get to ask questions , want to act things out ? Let them think it was their idea ?

Was this ever proven that he showed boys porn?! I don't think it was.

One of the Arvizo boys recounted their story and admitted he never showed them anything.

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why is MJ the only person on the planet that can get away with having boys at sleepovers, showing them porn etc,

Was it ever proven he showed kids porn?

retro:electro wrote: »

Just because he was found not guilty doesn’t mean we all have to shut up and agree with the verdict.

You don't agree with the verdict in the 2005 case? Really?

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Timing of course is very relevant - this "documentary" put together in the wake of the #metoo movement so Wade Robson & co can make as much cash as they can.

Timing doesn't seem to be his strong point TBF.

The date of his repressed memories coming back to him conveniently changed because of some obscure 60 day rule legal rule for him to file his 1.62 billion claim.

That changed again soon after to not being repressed memories but him having an Epiphany that he knew all along and only when he was 30 that he realized anally raping a 7 year old was wrong and illegal.

His claim coincided with the Jackson's estate suing AEG, a company he had previously worked with.

Also it needs to be remembered he defended Jackson publicly at every opportunity right until he was turned down by the Jackson estate for a lucrative job working on one of their shows.

Allegedly around the same time he had money and family problems.

Will be interesting to see if the easily verifiable aspects of all that made it into the 4 hour documentary.

retro:electro wrote: »

Again if it was Martin down the road who admitted to sleeping beside boys because it’s “beautiful” would we have the serial defence of him like it’s portrayed here.. would we hell.

Just a plain silly comparison TBH.

There is no one in there right mind serially defending anyone.

You seem to have a major problem with people honestly giving their opinion on the reality of the whole situation based on their knowledge of the evidence or lack of evidence versus your unwavering assertion that he was quite simply without doubt a creepy pedophile based solely on your own myopic assumptions.

Did he have traits similar to how sexual predators operate? Absolutely. Does that automatically equate to him being a child rapist. No. It's far more complex a case.