Micky Jackson in trouble again

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

But it would have supported their fight?

They didn't have to fight.

The case had fallen apart.

By that stage it was evident the prosecution had no case. That's why they tried to re litigate a settlement 11-12 years previously, he wasn't on trial for abusing Chandler.

Sleeper12

CALLER: Hi, is your name Tom?
TOM MESEREAU: Ah, my understanding was that it was

CALLER: Are you married?
TOM MESEREAU: My understanding was that the settlement agreement was a marriage

CALLER: Are you gay?
TOM MESEREAU: my understanding is that’s not correct.

:pac::pac::pac:

Mr. CooL ICE

retro:electro wrote: »

Keep up.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

English can't be your first language. My understanding & I've been told, aren't statement of facts

Mod: Lads, cool the jets and leave the petty digs out of it.

Either you're wrong or you're right, but, if you're thinking about my baby it don't matter if you're black or white.

Mark Rippetoe

Mark Rippetoe wrote: »

Mod: Lads, cool the jets and leave the petty digs out of it.

Either you're wrong or you're right, but, if you're thinking about my baby it don't matter if you're black or white.

Now that’s the way, awe huh, awe huh, I like moderation, awe huh awe huh-

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Even the person who signed the memorandum doesn’t agree with you

He didn't sign though, did he?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

He didn't sign though, did he?

Edited to appease your pedantic desires xox

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Edited to appease your pedantic desires xox

Facts are pedantic?

Fair enough so.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Facts are pedantic?

Fair enough so.

Yeah the facts are he submitted a document that was full of pony. Pity someone didn’t inform himself and MJ to keep the charade going long enough before they blew it. Even the smooth criminals don’t agree with you. Now that’s grim!



Be well!

Boggles

Gifs?

Sure sign the conspiracy websites have been exhausted.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

Gifs?

Sure sign the conspiracy websites have been exhausted.

I think they are concocting more fake stories while there is a lull in posts

retro:electro

A dig about a gif? A sure sign all opposing argument has been exhausted :pac:

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

A dig about a gif? A sure sign all opposing argument has been exhausted

I actually thought it was a dig at the type and source of the "facts" you are posting rather than the gif itself

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I actually thought it was a dig at the type and source of the "facts" you are posting rather than the gif itself

Yeah come back to me when you’re able to back up anything you’ve been saying with anything other than irrelevant penis pictures.
Toodles!

Sleeper12

https://talunzeitoun.com/2019/01/30/michael-jackson-and-me/?fbclid=IwAR0ch5huUwFqEZvnNluGGabQqkKAyTob7jUaFIEciFm-hqU2tST7a9Wbzcs

I was a boy in Michael Jackson’s life, and nothing of what he’s being accused of in this documentary happened

retro:electro

I met Larry Murphy once, and he didn’t murder or rape me. Therefore I can categorically state as fact that he didn’t murder or rape anybody else.


:rolleyes:

retro:electro

It gets better!!

“nothing of what he’s being accused of in this documentary happened”

He then goes on to say

“I haven’t seen the documentary”



You’re a hoot Sleeper never change.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote: »

It gets better!!

“nothing of what he’s being accused of in this documentary happened”

He then goes on to say

“I haven’t seen the documentary”



You’re a hoot Sleeper never change.

I havent seen it either yet I know what's in it. You don't have to watch something to know the claims. I'll bet 90% or more of posters haven't seen it. You are commenting on it & you haven't seen it either I'm betting! :rolleyes:

retro:electro

That doesn’t give him the authority to decide whether or not someone else’s experiences did or didn’t happen.
I provided proof earlier where a lawyer who submitted a motion concluded that the insurance rumour is just that, a rumour. And you dismissed it as “not first hand knowledge” among other crap.

Yet you think you can post proof that something didn’t happen because a totally irrelevant person with completely different experiences said it didn’t?

I’m literally haemorrhaging over your brain dead posts.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote: »

That doesn’t give him the authority to decide whether or not someone else’s experiences did or didn’t happen.
I provided proof earlier where a lawyer who submitted a motion concluded that the insurance rumour is just that, a rumour. And you dismissed it as “not first hand knowledge” among other crap.

Yet you think you can post proof that something didn’t happen because a totally irrelevant person with completely different experiences said it didn’t?

I’m literally haemorrhaging over your brain dead posts.

But you feel it gives you the right???


We are all posting opinions here. You genuinely feel someone who actually knew the man has no right to comment yet You & your conspiracy websites can??

fin12

I luv u Michael, don’t ever think ur fans will abonden u. U were too good and pure for this world and miss understand and the world always destroys what it doesn’t know , I luv u mj.

gozunda

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But you feel it gives you the right???

We are all posting opinions here. You genuinely feel someone who actually knew the man has no right to comment yet You & your conspiracy websites can??

I agree with your previous comment tbh. Looks like everyone elses opinion is invalid for some strange reason and you are correct about those websites are best conspiracy feeding pots. Funny that pot kettle & etc

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

I luv u Michael, don’t ever think ur fans will abonden u. U were too good and pure for this world and miss understand and the world always destroys what it doesn’t know , I luv u mj.

He’s dead and can’t read this. We’ve reached peak cray.

ceadaoin.

I see I missed a cracking argument there


Obsessive Michael Jackson fans are a whole other level of crazy. There's something missing in your life if you display that level of devotion to a complete stranger!

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

He’s dead

Still isn't stopping ne'er do wells from trying to profit from him post-mortem.

Anyway, I think the reason why the thread was started was largely ignored, mainly because some people thought it fun to re-litigate a farcical trial using myths from lunatic fringe conspiracy sites.

The context of the new "allegations"

Wade Robson when Jackson died.

Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.

That's that so.

Until.

In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”

That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

Pull the fooking other one Wade.

:rolleyes:

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

Still isn't stopping ne'er do wells from trying to profit from him post-mortem.

Anyway, I think the reason why the thread was started was largely ignored, mainly because some people thought it fun to re-litigate a farcical trial using myths from lunatic fringe conspiracy sites.

The context of the new "allegations"

Wade Robson when Jackson died.



That's that so.

Until.









Pull the fooking other one Wade.

:rolleyes:

So if more people came forward would you automatically write them off as money grabbers too?

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

Still isn't stopping ne'er do wells from trying to profit from him post-mortem.

Anyway, I think the reason why the thread was started was largely ignored, mainly because some people thought it fun to re-litigate a farcical trial using myths from lunatic fringe conspiracy sites.

The context of the new "allegations"

Wade Robson when Jackson died.



That's that so.

Until.









Pull the fooking other one Wade.

:rolleyes:

You know some children don’t realise they were abused right? That’s part and parcel of grooming.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So if more people came forward would you automatically write them off as money grabbers too?

Sorry, you want me to speculate on a hypothetical?

Ah. No. You're all right.

What do you think about the bould Wade?

Bone fide?

Boggles

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You know some children don’t realised they were abused right? That’s part and parcel of grooming.

He knew he was "abused".

He didn't realize that anally raping a 7 year old was actually wrong until he was 30 years old.

It just happened to coincide with him been turned down for a job from the estate he tried to sue.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

He knew he was "abused".

He didn't realize that anally raping a 7 year old was actually wrong until he was 30 years old.

It just happened to coincide with him been turned down for a job from the estate he tried to sue.

The experts disagree with you. Denial is a real thing in victims of grooming and abuse. Some never admit it.

8-10

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So if more people came forward would you automatically write them off as money grabbers too?

This is the difficult point to overcome with regards Michael. Unfortunately if anybody was a real victim it's going to be harder than with anyone else because of the history of false allegations about him from people trying to exploit him for money.

I don't deny something could have happened to somebody but I find it harder given the previous claims and the fact that there's still so much media disinformation that many people believe him to be an abuser and his estate still has a lot of money.

The motivations of Wade Robson to me are nearly as suspect as those of Jordy Chandler and Gavin Arviso but I'm going to wait until the documentary to decide on whether I believe him. At the moment I'm very sceptical...but then nobody has seen this doc yet so we're only speculating

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The experts disagree with you. Denial is a real thing in victims of grooming and abuse. Some never admit it.

And some "victims" come flat out with it in a book they couldn't get published and then in a lawsuit that was fooked out of court.

And when that doesn't work they latch onto some no-body "documentarian" who only wants to give their side of the story because of something...something...etc, something.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

And some "victims" come flat out with it in a book they couldn't get published and then in a lawsuit that was fooked out of court.

And when that doesn't work they latch onto some no-body "documentarian" who only wants to give their side of the story because of something...something...etc, something.

"Fooked out of court" because the statute of limitations had passed. Not for any other reason.

I don't know, I've read their accounts and if they weren't abused, they've really done their homework about how a groomer operates and how abuse victims feel. It just rings true to me, on several levels. They have said they didn't get paid for documentary

Yeah a "nobody documentarian" who's been nominated for several awards including an emmy and won a bafta for previous work.

Mam of 4

It's no wonder so many victims of grooming/abuse , never come forward or even admit to anyone that it happened to them .

Instead , it gets buried inside a box in your head , too painful to deal with or admit to , as how are you meant to prove it ? Keep a log of times and dates ? Means nothing tbh .

Theboinkmaster

Boggles wrote: »

Still isn't stopping ne'er do wells from trying to profit from him post-mortem.

Anyway, I think the reason why the thread was started was largely ignored, mainly because some people thought it fun to re-litigate a farcical trial using myths from lunatic fringe conspiracy sites.

The context of the new "allegations"

Wade Robson when Jackson died.



That's that so.

Until.









Pull the fooking other one Wade.

:rolleyes:

Well summarised IMO, thank you.

I don't believe a word Wade says - just another money grabbing con man.

Theboinkmaster

retro:electro wrote: »

I met Larry Murphy once, and he didn’t murder or rape me. Therefore I can categorically state as fact that he didn’t murder or rape anybody else.


:rolleyes:

To be fair he didn't meet him once, he was constantly in his life for 14 years.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't know, I've read their accounts and if they weren't abused, they've really done their homework about how a groomer operates and how abuse victims feel.

Yeah, 1.62 billion would make you do your homework all right.

BBFAN

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

To be fair he didn't meet him once, he was constantly in his life for 14 years.

I know someone who was married to a child abuser for 14 years, I begged her on the eve of the wedding not to marry him because I knew he was a bad un even though I didn't know the full truth then.

He's since been jailed for 14 years and she still refuses to admit he did anything wrong. Delusion is real folks. :rolleyes:

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

He's since been jailed for 14 years and she still refuses to admit he did anything wrong. Delusion is real folks.

Off topic I know but some women chose to believe their husband over their children he's sexually abusing or raping. Fortunately this is rare but delusion is alive and well for sure

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

To be fair he didn't meet him once, he was constantly in his life for 14 years.

And others who were in his life for years have said they were abused. You choose not to believe those people but are more than willing to believe the ones who said nothing happened to them.

Why cant both statements be true? Some were abused, some werent.

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote:

And others who were in his life for years have said they were abused. You choose not to believe those people but are more than willing to believe the ones who said nothing happened to them.

Here's the thing. Every single accuser has gone for money, sold their story. Not a single accuser just tried to get him stopped (if he was doing anything). One of the idiots in the movie tried to get one Billion dollars! The original 1993 case the family took the money & ran. They had no regard for future possible victims. No one is a nice person in this story. Its hard to believe someone when they are more interested in money than stopping the "monster".

BBFAN

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Off topic I know but some women chose to believe their husband over their children he's sexually abusing or raping. Fortunately this is rare but delusion is alive and well for sure

Irony is alive and well alright. :rolleyes:

This is coming from the person who CHOOSES to believe Wacko is completely innocent.

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

This is coming from the person who CHOOSES to believe Wacko is completely innocent.

I suggest you go back and read the thread again. I have stated dozens of times that I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. I won't label a man a paedophile without proof. So far no one has provided proof. Nothing from the conspiracy sites have stood up to scrutiny & logic. I'm open to him being innocent or guilty.

Reading the thread there is one side who have condemned the man without proof & refuse to accept the there is a possibility he's innocent. Very few if any on the other side of the argument insist he's definitely innocent. They would rather wait for proof before labeling him a monster.

In 1993 the police searched his house and found nothing illegal. Nothing. They had no evidence that a crime took place & couldn't charge him with any crime. In 2004 he was charged, went to court and was found not guilty. He wasn't found not guilty because of reasonable doubt. The jury truly believed him innocent. Members of the jury believe that the boys parents were after money & that no crime took place. They are on the record for saying this. There are YouTube videos with them saying this. The jury heard & saw all of the evidence. I don't understand how someone here on boards.ie can say that he did it with zero proof when the jury that saw the real proof say he's innocent and the parents were money grabbers. At least I can say I'm open either way. I just need proof before I call him a paedophile.

BBFAN

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suggest you go back and read the thread again. I have stated dozens of times that I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. I won't label a man a paedophile without proof. So far no one has provided proof. Nothing from the conspiracy sites have stood up to scrutiny & logic. I'm open to him being innocent or guilty.

Reading the thread there is one side who have condemned the man without proof & refuse to accept the there is a possibility he's innocent. Very few if any on the other side of the argument insist he's definitely innocent. They would rather wait for proof before labeling him a monster.

In 1993 the police searched his house and found nothing illegal. Nothing. They had no evidence that a crime took place & couldn't charge him with any crime. In 2004 he was charged, went to court and was found not guilty. He wasn't found not guilty because of reasonable doubt. The jury truly believed him innocent. Members of the jury believe that the boys parents were after money & that no crime took place. They are on the record for saying this. There are YouTube videos with them saying this. The jury heard & saw all of the evidence. I don't understand how someone here on boards.ie can say that he did it with zero proof when the jury that saw the real proof say he's innocent and the parents were money grabbers. At least I can say I'm open either way. I just need proof before I call him a paedophile.

You see you're telling complete lies here, you've called his accusers liars straight out, what proof have you got that they are liars?

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suggest you go back and read the thread again. I have stated dozens of times that I don't know if he's innocent or guilty. I won't label a man a paedophile without proof. So far no one has provided proof. .

Define "proof". Smoking gun? A series of unexplainable coincidences? Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probability? 51% chances or greater? What a reasonable person may expect to be the truth?

I'm pretty tired of reading your spouting of "proof" every 2nd post- go define proof in your world and you might get (a) some evidence and (b) some respect.

Why don't you for once, put your cards on the table- otherwise you're just messing with people and their views.

Boggles

BBFAN wrote: »

This is coming from the person who CHOOSES to believe Wacko is completely innocent.

Paulina Coccoz - Juror in Trial.

It was pretty obvious that there was no molestation done,” she said. “It was pretty obvious that there were ulterior motives on behalf of the family. And the mother, she orchestrated the whole thing…that’s my opinion. But there wasn’t a shred of evidence that was able to show us or give us any doubt in voting guilty. It was pretty obvious there was no other way to vote other than not guilty

Thoughts?

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

You see you're telling complete lies here, you've called his accusers liars straight out, what proof have you got that they are liars?

Ffs. Why can't anyone read a thread properly. I called the two gents in the movie liars because they are. This is a fact. They are either lying now or purgered themselves & lied in court. It doesn't matter if Jackson is innocent or guilty, these men are proven liars one way or the other. They are liers. The first child lied about Jacksons penis. This is historical fact. The police didn't find any evidence to back up his claims & in the end refused to help them with their inquiries. Remember this family choose to go down the civil route rather than try get a conviction & get him off the street.

The whole family in the 2004 case lied through their teeth.Jordan Chandler, the alleged victim in the 1993 child abuse allegations, left the country rather than appear as a witness. I wonder what he had to hide. He ran from his 2nd chance to take Jackson off the streets.In the event that Chandler gave evidence, Mesereau said that he had prepared witnesses who would say Chandler had told them the abuse never happened and that he would never talk to his parents again for forcing him to lie.
The jury have repeatedly stated stated that the family were only after money
Google: Michael Jackson 2004 jury comments for their words not mine

Flippyfloppy

The way I see it is one group believes Michael Jackson, and the others believes the kids.

I believe the kids. There’s plenty of reasons why Jacko comes across as extremely off, if he wasn’t so cool no kids would have been allowed near him.

Think about the world back in the 90s and early 00s. It was different. Being gay was taboo, completely. People still turned a blind eye against Child Abuse.

Imagine if you were one of these boys, and your parents said to you, let’s get rich! All you have to do is tell everyone Michael Jackson did ______ and _____ to you all those times you were staying over. Don’t worry about having to publically come out and say it!! You’ll just forever be associated with it, all your current and future friends knowing about it.

We’ll have 20 million dollars, be grand son!

No kid would admit to that without it being true.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Why don't you for once, put your cards on the table- otherwise you're just messing with people and their views.

I respect the law. Like the rugby players in the North he was found not guilty. Like the rugby players in the North legally he's entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is not getting what the law says he should get here.

I have put my views on the table. I don't believe a man should be labeled a paedophile without proof. No one has posted any proof. A court of law couldn't prove it I don't see how anyone here thinks they can prove it

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

Define "proof". Smoking gun? A series of unexplainable coincidences? Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probability? 51% chances or greater? What a reasonable person may expect to be the truth?

Definition of proof

 (Entry 1 of 3)

1a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

BBFAN

Boggles wrote: »

Paulina Coccoz - Juror in Trial.



Thoughts?

Thoughts on what? That the juror believed the families motives weren't pure?

I couldn't care less. I care more about what the children went through than what their families motives were.