Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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?.

Photographs of Jackson’s penis in comparison to the Jordan’s drawing. Mr Jackson and his lawyers refused to hand over the copies to the prosecution, leaving them with no option but to bar them from court. Even the pro Michael propaganda sites will tell you that much.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Photographs of Jackson’s penis in comparison to the Jordan’s drawing. Mr Jackson and his lawyers refused to hand over the copies to the prosecution, leaving them with no option but to bar them from court. Even the pro Michael propaganda sites will tell you that much.

I don't know if that is true or not but someone took the photos. A doctor was present. No witnesses was called to compare what they they were had seen and the drawings. Why wasn't the doctor called to give evidence.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Photographs of Jackson’s penis in comparison to the Jordan’s drawing. Mr Jackson and his lawyers refused to hand over the copies to the prosecution, leaving them with no option but to bar them from court. Even the pro Michael propaganda sites will tell you that much.

Or put another way (reality) the judge (the guy in charge) denied the prosecutions request.

Maybe stay off the conspiracy sites for a bit or at the very least cast a courtesy common sense look over the stuff you are copying and pasting.

Scotty #

fryup wrote: »

my gut feeling about Michael Jackson is this.........

...the man was emotionally underdeveloped i.e. emotionally immature

do i think he knowingly abused kids...no

i honestly believe he wasn't capable of abusing anyone sexually, he came across so immature i'm convinced he died a virgin, if anything he was probably asexual.. a harmless confused kid in a man's body

I feel the same. We're not talking about any ordinary adult here. We're talking about someone who led an absolutely extraordinary life who started working pretty much full-time at the age of 4 or 5 and had no sense of the real world as you and I know it.

I remember watching his trail closely. The Arviso's, the family making the accusations, had already been found guilty of perjury at previous, unrelated trials, had been found guilty of welfare fraud, had tried to extort money from other celebrities and couldn't keep their story consistent. The defence had a number of kids, including Macaulay Culkin who had slept in Jacksons bed from the age of 5, testify that Jackson had never acted inappropriately at any time.

I can remember the jurors doing interviews immediately after the trial and being asked why they came to a not guilty verdict. They replied that there was simply no evidence against him.

Jackson was a loon, no doubt, and had a very warped sense of what was 'normal' behaviour, but I don't believe he abused kids and there has never been any credible evidence to suggest he did.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Or put another way (reality) the judge (the guy in charge) denied the prosecutions request.

Maybe stay off the conspiracy sites for a bit or at the very least cast a courtesy common sense look over the stuff you are copying and pasting.

Telling me to stay off conspiracy sites would have went a lot better had you not started off your post with guesswork and conjecture :pac:

The only “conspiracy” site I mentioned or referenced was a pro- Michael one. So if you’ve an issue with that then that’s quite gas.

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't know if that is true or not but someone took the photos. A doctor was present. No witnesses was called to compare what they they were had seen and the drawings. Why wasn't the doctor called to give evidence.

Sorry I can’t make head nor tail of that.

Sleeper12

Scotty # wrote:

I can remember the jurors doing interviews immediately after the trial and being asked why they came to a not guilty verdict. They replied that there was simply no evidence against him.

Two money grabbers fr the jury have since written books claiming that they made a mistake

I remember the ju being interviewed after the case. They all said the same thing. The evidence didn't back up the claims made

Boggles

Scotty # wrote: »

.

I can remember the jurors doing interviews immediately after the trial and being asked why they came to a not guilty verdict. They replied that there was simply no evidence against him.

Including the 2 Jurors that signed 6 figure book deals 2 months later.

Apparently the majority of the jurors were approached with book deals if they would state that they thought Jackson was indeed guilty, as was his lead counsel.

Just in case anyone is wondering, the books were never published, a few months later one of the jurors successfully sued to get out of the deal, the other juror changed the premise of her book, no one was interested in it.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Including the 2 Jurors that signed 6 figure book deals 2 months later.

Apparently the majority of the jurors were approached with book deals if they would state that they thought Jackson was indeed guilty, as was his lead counsel.

Just in case anyone is wondering, the books were never published, a few months later one of the jurors successfully sued to get out of the deal, the other juror changed the premise of her book, no one was interested in it.

Any proof?

8-10

Scotty # wrote: »

I remember watching his trail closely. The Arviso's, the family making the accusations, had already been found guilty of perjury at previous, unrelated trials, had been found guilty of welfare fraud, had tried to extort money from other celebrities and couldn't keep their story consistent. The defence had a number of kids, including Macaulay Culkin who had slept in Jacksons bed from the age of 5, testify that Jackson had never acted inappropriately at any time.

The welfare fraud one is interesting enough on it's own. Janet Arviso, the mother, shoplifted from JC Penneys, then sued the store because she was forcibly removed. She made her daughter lie about her being sexually assaulted and get a big payout. This payout wasn't declared and she went on welfare and was caught. The lawyer later admitted in court that the allegations were made up.

This is the same family who had medical insurance that paid for all of Gavin Arviso's cancer treatment but ran fundraising campaigns for his treatment in local newspapers and by exploiting celebrities for 10's of thousands of dollars for the treatment that was already paid for. They got $10k from a comedian, badgered Chris Tucker for a car and called up Jay Leno who got suspicious and said don't ever put me on the phone to that kid again.

Janet's testimony was crazy, that's where as someone else mentioned she was claiming she was afraid Jackson would kidnap the family in a hot air balloon and take them to Mexico.

Also, the most bizarre part of the allegations was that the claim was that Jackson never engaged in any sexual activity with Gavin Arviso until weeks after the Bashir documentary when the whole world was focused on bringing up his history again and the FBI were looking into his relationship with Gavin on the back of it....who does that? Who waits until the FBI are investigating if you engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor and then decides this is the right time for me to start it?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Telling me to stay off conspiracy sites would have went a lot better had you not started off your post with guesswork and conjecture :pac:

Please explain?

You stated this.

retro:electro wrote: »

Mr Jackson and his lawyers refused to hand over the copies to the prosecution, leaving them with no option but to bar them from court. Even the pro Michael propaganda sites will tell you that much.

That in itself is just plain silly, even if you knew nothing about the case, it's the judge who decides what is admissible and what isn't. not the prosecution or the defense, correct?

It was the Judge who ruled he would not allow them. Obviously

https://www.eonline.com/news/49950/no-peeking-at-jackson-s-penis

Superior Court Rodney S. Melville ruled Thursday that photos and a child's artistic rendering of Jackson owned-and-operated genitalia may not be shown at the singer's child-molestation trial.

Or as Melville put it: "I'm going to deny the request to bring in the evidence of the blemished penis."

Jackon went on to sue to get the pictures back, so the idea that the defense had them but just refused to hand them over is utter nonsensical slack jawed drivel.

Flippyfloppy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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


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

Okkkkk are you just telling posters about this condition or do you have a point to make?

Scotty #

8-10 wrote: »

The welfare fraud one is interesting enough on it's own. Janet Arviso, the mother, shoplifted from JC Penneys, then sued the store because she was forcibly removed. She made her daughter lie about her being sexually assaulted and get a big payout. This payout wasn't declared and she went on welfare and was caught. The lawyer later admitted in court that the allegations were made up.

This is the same family who had medical insurance that paid for all of Gavin Arviso's cancer treatment but ran fundraising campaigns for his treatment in local newspapers and by exploiting celebrities for 10's of thousands of dollars for the treatment that was already paid for. They got $10k from a comedian, badgered Chris Tucker for a car and called up Jay Leno who got suspicious and said don't ever put me on the phone to that kid again.

Janet's testimony was crazy, that's where as someone else mentioned she was claiming she was afraid Jackson would kidnap the family in a hot air balloon and take them to Mexico.

Also, the most bizarre part of the allegations was that the claim was that Jackson never engaged in any sexual activity with Gavin Arviso until weeks after the Bashir documentary when the whole world was focused on bringing up his history again and the FBI were looking into his relationship with Gavin on the back of it....who does that? Who waits until the FBI are investigating if you engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor and then decides this is the right time for me to start it?

Yea I can remember the Sheriff making a statement after the verdict and the journalists asking him was it not the Arviso's that should have been on trial??

Mad though that so many of the general public still see him as guilty despite all the facts.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Sorry I can’t make head nor tail of that.

Doctor examined Jacksons penis. He fill in a report describing the penis. Prosecution didn't want to call him as a witness either. They didn't want the drawings or the eye witness

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Please explain?.

Well that’s interesting.. so according to your link, the judge said

“I'm going to deny the request to bring in the evidence of the blemished penis."

Request by who? Your friend Sleeper12 said the prosecution didn’t want them shown in court. So after some googling I came across a pro Michael site (because I didn’t want to be bias) that agreed with same but stated the defence filed a motion to have them barred from the court due to the refusal of Michael and his team to hand over the pictures. But that contradicts the judge’s statements above so it looks like it’s your friend Sleeper12 and the pro Michael site who were wrong.
Go figure :pac:

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Doctor examined Jacksons penis. He fill in a report describing the penis. Prosecution didn't want to call him as a witness either. They didn't want the drawings or the eye witness

Yourself and Boggles need to get together and get your conspiracies stories straight.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Well that’s interesting.. so according to your link, the judge said

“I'm going to deny the request to bring in the evidence of the blemished penis."

Request by who? Your friend Sleeper12 said the prosecution didn’t want them shown in court. So after some googling I came across a pro Michael site (because I didn’t want to be bias) that agreed with same but stated the defence filed a motion to have them barred from the court due to the refusal of Michael and his team to hand over the pictures. But that contradicts the judge’s statements above so it looks like it’s your friend Sleeper12 and the pro Michael site who were wrong.
Go figure :pac:

retro:electro wrote: »

Mr Jackson and his lawyers refused to hand over the copies to the prosecution, leaving them with no option but to bar them from court.

Okay. Stay off the conspiracy sites for a minute.

Take a deep breath and answer this very simple question.

In a Trial who gets to say what evidence is admissible or not.

A. The Judge <

---

B. The Prosecution
C. The Defense.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Okay. Stay off the conspiracy sites for a minute.

Take a deep breath and answer this very simple question.

In a Trial who gets to say what evidence is admissible or not.

A. The Judge <

---

B. The Prosecution
C. The Defense.

Each side can file a motion and then the judge either grants it or denies it

And breathe

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Each side can file a motion and then the judge either grants it or denies it

And breathe

The Judge denied it because he thought it was too far into the trial and it was just being used as a shock tactic.

The trial had all but fallen apart for the prosecution by then.

Stay off the conspiracy sites and read the court transcripts, like you said they are easily available. A small bit of self fact checking goes along way in any discussion.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Stay off the conspiracy sites and read the court transcripts, like you said they are easily available. A small bit of self fact checking goes along way in any discussion.

Might want to tell that to your friend Sleeper. He’s fairly confused god love them.

And there’s nothing wrong with googling and fact checking (especially all the rubbish posted here)
None of us here are experts! But lesson learned that pro Michael sites are full of pony.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Including the 2 Jurors that signed 6 figure book deals 2 months later.

Apparently the majority of the jurors were approached with book deals if they would state that they thought Jackson was indeed guilty, as was his lead counsel.

Just in case anyone is wondering, the books were never published, a few months later one of the jurors successfully sued to get out of the deal, the other juror changed the premise of her book, no one was interested in it.

Any proof?

Theboinkmaster

Scotty # wrote: »

Yea I can remember the Sheriff making a statement after the verdict and the journalists asking him was it not the Arviso's that should have been on trial??

Mad though that so many of the general public still see him as guilty despite all the facts.

The sad thing about that trial is what it did to Michael Jackson mentally and physically - it destroyed him.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Any proof?

Of what?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Of what?

The bit in bold.

8-10

Scotty # wrote: »

Yea I can remember the Sheriff making a statement after the verdict and the journalists asking him was it not the Arviso's that should have been on trial??

Mad though that so many of the general public still see him as guilty despite all the facts.

Then you look at the Jordy Chandler allegations. Jordy refused to say the things his dad told him to say about Michael until his dad gave him Sodium Amytal claiming it to be a truth serum (it actually does the opposite and makes the patient easily influenced to say anything).

And just like the Arviso's, while Michael was paying attention to the family and giving them things it was all rosy, these allegations only came after Michael started to cut them off. In Gavin's case it was Chris Tucker who warned Michael about the family and when the prosecution asked Gavin on the stand why he was so angry with Michael he didn't say "because he molested me" or "because he stole my childhood", he said "because he stopped calling me"...??? And he admitted to his teacher that "'Michael did not do anything to me'"

In Jordy's case, Evan Chandler (father) similarly claimed to be pissed off that Michael stopped calling in taped phone conversations, e.g.:

CHANDLER: I don’t know where it’ll go, but I’m saying is that when people – when you — when people cut off communication totally, you only have two choices: To forget about them, or you get frustrated by their action. I can’t forget about them. I love them. That’s it. I don’t like them. I still love Jordy, but I do not like them because I do not like the people that they’ve become, but I do love them, and because I love them I don’t want to see them [tape irregularity]. That’s why I was willing to talk. I have nothing to gain by talking. If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out.

SCHWARTZ: But when you say “winning,” what are you talking about, “winning”?

CHANDLER: I will get everything I want, and they will be totally — they will be destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again.

SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

CHANDLER: That’s a fact, Dave. That’s what –

SCHWARTZ: Does that help –

CHANDLER: — Michael the career will be over.

SCHWARTZ: Does that help Jordy?

CHANDLER: Michael’s career will be over.

SCHWARTZ: And does that help Jordy?

CHANDLER: It’s irrelevant to me.

Was always interesting that Evan never wanted a criminal trial, he went for the Civil trial first and when it settled there was no criminal trial...interesting. He got $15m from it but Jordy wasn't prevented from testifying in future.

Years later in Gavin's 2005 trial Jordy fled the country so he wouldn't have to testify, he filed for legal emancipation from his parents and brought forward allegations of abuse from his father Evan. Evan then shoots himself in the head before that suit gets to court.

I'm amazed at the amount of posters here taking these allegations as proof of guilt and not once speaking about the motivations of the parents.

Sleeper12

Flippyfloppy wrote:

Okkkkk are you just telling posters about this condition or do you have a point to make?

If you read the posts before you'll see someone suggested that Jacksons penis would look cut when erect. The link points to a common condition where the foreskin is too tight to ever pull back. The only way someone with this condition could look cut, erect or not, is to be cut. Jackson wasn't cut. The boys drawing looked nothing like Jacksons penis.

What posters keep forgetting is that the police had all of this information yet couldn't bring charges against the him. There was no evidence or proof of his guilt

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

A. The Judge < B. The Prosecution C. The Defense.

Can he go 50/50 or phone a friend? Make it easier on him

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Can he go 50/50 or phone a friend? Make it easier on him

Or C) ask a pro Michael website. But then we’d likely get it wrong wouldn’t we Sleeper

Ps. I’m a lady

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

The bit in bold.

It was a claim made by Aphrodite Jones (that's why I said apparently), she also went on to say that she couldn't get a publisher to back her book because it was "pro Jackson".

As for the Jury being bombarded with book deals, it was reported at the time they were being approached before the trial was even finished.

Even by our press.

The jurors in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial are being offered money-spinning book deals worth more than $1 million (€0.83m) to produce the first exclusive inside story of the high-profile court case.

American literacy agents are already in contact with the jurors through their relatives.

A Los Angeles Literacy agent told British newspaper The Sunday Times: "The first to produce the book could make $1 million, especially if they convict Jackson.

"And even if they clear him, the public will want to know why."

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/jackson-jury-lining-up-lucrative-book-deals-206957.html

The bit in bold is quite telling, IMO.

Flippyfloppy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If you read the posts before you'll see someone suggested that Jacksons penis would look cut when erect. The link points to a common condition where the foreskin is too tight to ever pull back. The only way someone with this condition could look cut, erect or not, is to be cut. Jackson wasn't cut. The boys drawing looked nothing like Jacksons penis.

What posters keep forgetting is that the police had all of this information yet couldn't bring charges against the him. There was no evidence or proof of his guilt

You haven’t claimed Michael had this condition, you’re just mentioning it?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

It was a claim made by Aphrodite Jones (that's why I said apparently), she also went on to say that she couldn't get a publisher to back her book because it was "pro Jackson".

As for the Jury being bombarded with book deals, it was reported at the time they were being approached before the trial was even finished.

Even by our press.



https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/jackson-jury-lining-up-lucrative-book-deals-206957.html

The bit in bold is quite telling, IMO.

Sorry but nowhere does any of that state your claim that:

Boggles wrote: »

Apparently the majority of the jurors were approached with book deals if they would state that they thought Jackson was indeed guilty, as was his lead counsel.

And Aphrodite wasn’t on the jury so that’s irrelevant.
Can you clarify where you read the bit in bold?

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Ps. I’m a lady

Howdy do mam.

My apologies. I do have the stupid habit of assuming most posters are male

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

And Aphrodite wasn’t on the jury so that’s irrelevant.
Can you clarify where you read the bit in bold?

In her book, you should read it.

All though I imagine you only indulge in fiction.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

In her book, you should it read.

All though I imagine you only indulge in fiction.

No need to resort to personal remarks. The first bit would have sufficed

There’s nothing I can find online about it. Do you have the book handy?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

There’s nothing I can find online about it. Do you have the book handy?

Yeah I carry around with me everywhere. It's like a bible.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah I carry around with me everywhere. It's like a bible.

Very defensive there. Quite telling. Anyway, I’ve read I’ll I needed to know here.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Very defensive there. Quite telling. Anyway, I’ve read I’ll I needed to know here.

I don't know how else one would answer such an odd question.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I don't know how else one would answer such an odd question.

Asking if you own the book you’ve claimed to have read is an odd question?

Rory28

I have not read the whole tread so apologies if this was already mentioned. Was he not chemically castrated as a kid/teen by his Father to keep his voice the way it was? He was obviously a sick puppy but if that rumor is true was he even capable of abusing kids?

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Asking if you own the book you’ve claimed to have read is an odd question?

No that's not an odd question at all. That's not the question you asked though.

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you have the book handy?

That is odd.

retro:electro

Okay since you’re being purposefully obtuse, I’ll ask again in plainer English. Do you own the book you’ve claimed to have read and have quoted from? Not to be confused with do you carry the gospel according to Michael with you around in your bag.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you own the book you’ve claimed to have read and have quoted from?

No.

retro:electro

Figured

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Figured

The library does.

retro:electro

Rory28 wrote: »

I have not read the whole tread so apologies if this was already mentioned. Was he not chemically castrated as a kid/teen by his Father to keep his voice the way it was? He was obviously a sick puppy but if that rumor is true was he even capable of abusing kids?

Those are unverified claims floating about by his doctor Conrad Murray but I don’t know how true they are, as there’s no evidence to confirm. Maybe Aphrodite Jones can tell us.

retro:electro

Also even if true, I believe chemical casteration is just a temporary measure to lower your libido and is reversible when treatment stops. It’s not permanent and it doesn’t sterilise you.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote: »

Also even if true, I believe chemical casteration is just a temporary measure to lower your libido and is reversible when treatment stops. It’s not permanent and it doesn’t sterilise you.

i think you are correct. As far as I remember if you stop taking the medication the effect wears off

Sleeper12

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You haven’t claimed Michael had this condition, you’re just mentioning it?

No I'm not claiming it. It is a common condition. I know three sets of father & sons that have admitted to it.


I only posted it to show that not every erect penis look like they are cut

Rory28

retro:electro wrote: »

Also even if true, I believe chemical casteration is just a temporary measure to lower your libido and is reversible when treatment stops. It’s not permanent and it doesn’t sterilise you.

Ah. I was unaware of that.

ceadaoin.

Rory28 wrote: »

I have not read the whole tread so apologies if this was already mentioned. Was he not chemically castrated as a kid/teen by his Father to keep his voice the way it was? He was obviously a sick puppy but if that rumor is true was he even capable of abusing kids?

His high pitched voice speaking voice was fake. He had a normal deep male voice that he used when he wanted to. Obviously he had a wide vocal range but it wasn't because he was castrated. I'm sure he didn't mind those rumours being out there though if it cast doubt on any allegations

Anyway, if someone is intent on abuse they will do it, a functioning penis isn't a requirement