Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro wrote: »

Molesting a minor
How do you not know this?

What are u on about? U said he was charged????

fin12 wrote: »

What are u on about? U said he was charged????

Yeah he was charged with molesting a minor fin, back in 2004. Is this seriously news to you? How do you think he had a trial?

retro:electro wrote:

Do you think they’re allowed to embellish facts and lie? Seriously, get a grip of yourself.

Their job is to put a particular slant on it. They might dig up an expert saying that the books were grooming.
The other side will come back with a world renowned photographer stating that the books are art and every budding photography student should have a copy.

Neither one might be correct but it's what lawyers do. It's part of their job

fin12 wrote: »

You seem to get confused a lot when questioned on your comments.

It comes naturally when reading your posts.
Where did I call you a liar fin?

retro:electro wrote: »

It comes naturally when reading your posts.
Where did I call you a liar fin?

When I said how their account of the book was biased and suited to their needs as the prosecution.

People lie all the time under oath? If you believe his accuser Wade whatever the f*ck his name, he lied under oath already didn’t he if he’s now claiming Jackson abused him.

fin12 wrote: »

You seem to get confused a lot when questioned on your comments.

Clearly confused as to how you came the conclusion that she called you a liar when she clearly said "they're" and was obviously referring to the prosecution. You seem a bit confused yourself

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They don't lie but they can keep looking for an expert to bend the truth for them. The expert won't even be deliberately lying. You find the one that believes what you want them to believe to suit your case.

Of course, and if there was anything incorrect here which a whole host of impartial psychologists have attested to that could have been refuted by the defence then it would have been; but there wasn’t. The court room is an open and level field in that regard.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do you believe that everyone with one of these books is a paedophile? Men & women?

Possession of those books in and of itself would have a red flag waving yes. There’s no reason a normal rational human being should own such a book, it’s odd. Possession of these books coupled with the knowledge this man (or woman) liked to sleep in his bed with little boys, preferring their company over that of their spouse, and being extremely tactile and having paid off a previous abuse accuser with hush money would have me running for the hills. More red flags than a bull fighting convention.

fin12 wrote: »

Ya I did. Sorry

I guess u were right about me putting down the phone

Haha no worries!

BBFAN wrote: »

Telling of what? That I have no respect for a multi millionaire who carried on the way he did? You're right I don't.

I asked you a question but you ignored it and expect me to answer your question. It's obvious where your coming from btw.

I've never used the ignore anyone on this site but I think it's about time to see how that works.

He rarely sang in an intimate setting, but when he did he was good.
A song he sang once only, for Sammy Davis Jr

Most of the other side seem open that he could be guilty or innocent. They are arguing that there is no evidence or proof to make a decision one way or the other.

There have been many credible accusations, and strong indications that Jackson shut them down by intimidation, bribes, manipulation and cunning. Yes, Jackson was acquitted, but that has to be viewed in the context of the difficulty of prosecuting sexual crimes against children, Jackson's known cunning and manipulation, and the new evidence emerging.

And attacking someone who reveals that they were abused as a child because they were abused by a rich and powerful man is reprehensible. It indicates that the powerful can behave as they want, and that people should be intimidated into silence. You don't even have to believe them to refrain from behaving in that way.

twill wrote: »

There have been many credible accusations, and strong indications that Jackson shut them down by intimidation, bribes, manipulation and cunning. Yes, Jackson was acquitted, but that has to be viewed in the context of the difficulty of prosecuting sexual crimes against children, Jackson's known cunning and manipulation, and the new evidence emerging.

And attacking someone who reveals that they were abused as a child because they were abused by a rich and powerful man is reprehensible. It indicates that the powerful can behave as they want, and that people should be intimidated into silence. You don't even have to believe them to refrain from behaving in that way.

I am not saying you are wrong and indeed if true is reprehensible as you say but do you have any concrete (I’m not going to say evidence) accounts where this can be corroborated. So many people have been found to be liars and gold diggers. So many have been caught out in lies. How are you so sure of your statement?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He was found not guilty in a court of law and I respect all court decisions. I couldn't blacken a man's name based on made up Internet stories.

You’re speaking like someone who refuses to believe or else doesn’t know that sometimes guilty people get off. He was acquitted because it is notoriously difficult to bring a sexual abuse charge against someone; let alone one where some time has passed. It is an undisputed fact that more guilty people walk free than innocent convicted.

Even two of the jurors have come out and stated they were wrong to go Not Guilty. And I know I know... book deals, cash, yada yada yada. The thing is though they could have written a book about any of the trial process and it would have been just as financially beneficial.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'll dig up any oul cack to back up my beliefs. I'll prove here on boards what a well financed police force & DPP couldn't do & I don't care how I do it.

the DPP, or DA could do it. Which is why he was arrested and charged and brought to trial. We’re not plucking these things out of the sky here.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This the caliber of the people accusing him. Loyal friends when he was alive and they could milk money from him. He dies and their story changes & they want a billion.

What kind of a world do you live in where you think there are so many bad people willing to cash in on total fabrications? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but to the degree you’re suggesting- The DA, the victims, the jurors, his maids, yada yada.. Unlikely. Maybe, just maybe- what they’re stating has actually happened?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was the prosecution that didn't want the drawing to be shown in court.

I wonder why? because both Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office refused to give him copies of the photographs.
Yes he got some of the penis description wrong but what a lot of his defenders fail to acknowledge is that he also got a lot of it right, including blemishes that he couldn’t have just guessed. Again, he was a child, of course there’ll have been errors. Unless you’ve seen the images in question then you’ve no authority whatsoever to say whether they were a match or not. All you’re doing is reading and believing pro Michael propaganda blogs like “Free MJ.com”
Again, why would you pay off someone with $20m in hush money who so clearly drew a hodgepodge representation of your penis and then block their right to have copies of the photos? Wouldn’t that have gone in his favour? Hmmm..

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re speaking like someone who refuses to believe or else doesn’t know that sometimes guilty people get off. He was acquitted because it is notoriously difficult to bring a sexual abuse charge against someone; let alone one where some time has passed. It is an undisputed fact that more guilty people walk free than innocent convicted.

Even two of the jurors have come out and stated they were wrong to go Not Guilty. And I know I know... book deals, cash, yada yada yada. The thing is though they could have written a book about any of the trial process and it would have been just as financially beneficial.



the DPP, or DA could do it. Which is why he was arrested and charged and brought to trial. We’re not plucking these things out of the sky here.



What kind of a world do you live in where you think there are so many bad people willing to cash in on total fabrications? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but to the degree you’re suggesting- The DA, the victims, the jurors, his maids, yada yada.. Unlikely. Maybe, just maybe- what they’re stating has actually happened?



I wonder why? because both Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office refused to give him copies of the photographs.
Yes he got some of the penis description wrong but what a lot of his defenders fail to acknowledge is that he also got a lot of it right, including blemishes that he couldn’t have just guessed. Again, he was a child, of course there’ll have been errors. Unless you’ve seen the images in question then you’ve no authority whatsoever to say whether they were a match or not. All you’re doing is reading and believing pro Michael propaganda blogs like “Free MJ.com”
Again, why would you pay off someone with $20m in hush money who so clearly drew a hodgepodge representation of your penis and then block their right to have copies of the photos? Wouldn’t that have gone in his favour? Hmmm..

I think you are mixing things up here. I have no idea what photos you are talking about? Are these the ones that there is no record of them existing apart from a request to see them?


The drawing of the penis was done by the child. HIS lawyers didn't want this drawing shown in court because when examined Mr Jackson looked like a typical male jew but the boy who never saw jacksons penis drew a cut penis. This wouldn't be very good for their case.

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

That doesn’t even make sense, the poor boy would have seen it when it was erect when the foreskin was back anyway.... ridiculous that the case rest on a boy remembering correctly and drawing it correctly.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/phimosis/


Very common. Runs in familes. Doesn't effect the female side of the family too much though