Micky Jackson in trouble again

Ashbourne hoop

sligeach wrote: »

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Excellent article. I note the author of the piece, David Walsh.

It's a great piece.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

“The poor guy” is still posting he’s just avoiding my question

And nope

Jaysus, keep your panties dry. I'm not your personal secretary.

https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Petition-to-Compel-Arbitration.pdf

The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements

retro:electro

Try again Boggles. I’m looking for the quote from the judge where she called “ the two men ” liars.

ToBeFrank123

I didn't watch the documentary. I've better things to do with 4 hours of my life than watch a doc about Michael Jackson or any individual for that matter.

However if someone is accused of something they deserve to defend themselves and put across a defense. That's what would happen in a courtroom. Accusers should be cross examined to see if their story holds water.

I didn't hear of any of that happening in this documentary from what I have read. Sounds like some puff piece interviews where they are allowed say what they want without any serious cross examination. A competent lawyer would tear their stories to shreds in a court in a matter of minutes if they were bullsh*tting.

One sided documentaries are not the way to put someone on trial, dead or alive. He may be guilty, he may be innocent, but a situation where witnesses can say what they like without cross examination is not a proper trial. At best its a kangaroo court.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Try again Boggles. I’m looking for the quote from the judge where she called “ the two men ” liars.

I just gave you a legal document filed with the Supreme Court of California.

Now I know it doesn't have soft lighting and sad background music.

But sure what can I do.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I just gave you a legal document filed with the Supreme Court of California.

Now I know it doesn't have soft lighting and sad background music.

But sure what can I do.

No you gave me an anecdote written by a bias third party about one of the men you’re taking about. Where’s the evidence she called them liars? Specifically Safechuck?...

You refereed to both men, remember..

Deebles McBeebles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Don’t personally understand how you could watch that last night and play him on Spotify this morning. I won’t be listening to his music again anyway.

Yeah, he gave us Billie Jean but he touched those kids.

That's a valid POV but have you done that with all other artists you like who have had allegations made against them? Remember, they are just allegations from a documentary you watched (half of) last night. Some of them have even been ruled against in court.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

That's just a bunch of pony though isn't it?

Yeah there is a stencil for victims of abuse but it is not a blanket covering every case that has ever existed and all answers are neatly arranged there.

The two men have been asked very simple questions under deposition, they couldn't answer and when they did they were all over the place, basically they were telling lies. That was the Judges opinion.

Alleged victims of abuse definitely deserve to be heard, but equally they deserve to be scrutinized.

Or do we just dispense with fact finding altogether and anyone that makes allegation is believed without doubt, because HBO told us?

.

Agree fully. Jackson's guilt or innocence can only ever be decided in a court case where each side has a fair representation, can cross examine, question witnesses and evidence. If these guys want to challenge his estate in court that's where the issue can be resolved.

retro:electro

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I One sided documentaries are not the way to put someone on trial

Those criticising it for being one sided are being every bit as bias as they believe the doc to be because they’re closing themselves off to at least hearing all of the information. If there was a documentary to the contrary I would absolutely watch it. Now granted I probably wouldn’t change my mind but how can you be sure you’re truly objective in your views unless you’ve heard all sides. (I can say this as I’ve read all the mj defence there is and find it unconvincing at best) I guess some people would just rather not know.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

Those criticising it for being one sided are being every bit as bias as they believe the doc to be because they’re closing themselves off to at least hearing all of the information. If there was a documentary to the contrary I would absolutely watch it. Now granted I probably wouldn’t change my mind but how can you be sure you’re truly objective in your views unless you’ve heard all sides. (I can say this as I’ve read all the mj defence there is and find it unconvincing at best) I guess some people would just rather not know.

That documentary is literally one side of the story. You're better off not seeing it if you want to be unbiased.

ToBeFrank123

Just as a reminder about credibility.
2 million pounds was spent on operation Midland in the UK after detectives had deemed the testimony of the main witness "Nick" as credible.

After several years it was wound up when Nick was discovered to be a fraud.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2016/nov/08/operation-midland-report-into-mets-sex-abuse-inquiry-published-live-updates

Likewise Cliff Richard had his career all but ruined in a very public manner. He too was innocent.

I'm not saying the two witnesses in the MJ docu are similar to "Nick" but credibility should not be judged on face value. You need hard evidence to support it or multiple independent witnesses who have never met each other before and who give independent accounts which are fully investigated not by a film maker but my professionals.

Deebles McBeebles

sligeach wrote: »

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Excellent article. I note the author of the piece, David Walsh.

Just finished that, cheers, great read and very informative.

retro:electro

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

That documentary is literally one side of the story. You're better off not seeing it if you want to be unbiased.

Plenty have seen it and their MJ shrines have remained intact so I don’t think that’s at all true.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Agree fully. Jackson's guilt or innocence can only ever be decided in a court case where each side has a fair representation, can cross examine, question witnesses and evidence. If these guys want to challenge his estate in court that's where the issue can be resolved.

This pretty sums it up, from the document lodged with the Surpreme Court.

By 2013 and 2014, they were in financial dire straits. Safechuck was in serious need of money, the failed dreams of a successful acting and music career having long since passed him by.

For his part, Robson was at the end of his choreography career. He had burned so many bridges that the only thing he had left was his connection with Michael Jackson.

But in 2011, the Jackson Estate had turned him down for the lead choreography job in a Cirque du Soleil show, a job that he told Cirque he “wanted badly.”

By 2012, Robson’s wife was threatening to divorce him because of his
inability to work.

It was just then in his 30s that he came to the stark realization that anally raping a child was wrong and he needed a billion dollars.

Grifters!

LuckyLloyd

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

That's a valid POV but have you done that with all other artists you like who have had allegations made against them? Remember, they are just allegations from a documentary you watched (half of) last night. Some of them have even been ruled against in court.

I'm starting to. I understand that there were charges ultimately thrown out in court because of the difficulty of proving beyond reasonable doubt in that setting.

However, it is inarguable that he had objectively unhealthy friendships with young boys of an obsessional nature. It is inarguable that he was allowed access to those boys that would objectively trigger alarm bells today. It is inarguable that he shared a bed with those boys in an unsupervised fashion. It is also a matter of public record that court ordered searches of Neverland returned materials of boys with little or no clothing. The materials were not illegal to own at the time, but would be now.

All of that is beyond suspect and, to be honest, more than enough to indicate that Jackson was a weird and troubled man. He avoided prosecution in court, but the two men telling their story in this latest documentary are highly highly credible. I bought their stories as truth. And ultimately, within the inarguably weird context above, you need some level of belief to think that his relationship with young boys could have been entirely innocent in nature.

His handlers and those working for him who facilitated all of this have a huge amount to answer for imo.

retro:electro

And the proof the judge called both men liars? Come on. Surely mjisbaeforlifexoxoxo.blogspot.com has something you can pull from?

innuendo141

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Agree fully. Jackson's guilt or innocence can only ever be decided in a court case where each side has a fair representation, can cross examine, question witnesses and evidence. If these guys want to challenge his estate in court that's where the issue can be resolved.

This is where the interesting bits would come out. Their previous testimonies contradict what they are saying now. Robson has emails back and forth to his mother asking her to describe times they were with Jackson in order to write the book he tried to shop before the claims were lodged. If they get to court, they will need to fave up to this. They could have legit answers, but they should have been addressed in this documentary because it has left out how serious the credibility issues are with these two. This could have quenched all those questions over them.

ToBeFrank123

He had an unhealthy friendship with boys. He also had an unhealthy friendship with a monkey. He probably shared a bed with the monkey.

Unhealthy friendships are not hard evidence of anything, unless he's going to be accused of touching the monkey next.

I'm not trying to demean abuse, I'm just saying in this case there's no hard evidence. The police investigated him and searched his house and at most found adult porn.

Until we see multiple independent accounts, not motivated by financial gain and also hard evidence, people are rightly going to keep an open mind.

A documentary is not a court trial so lets not pretend it is.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

Plenty have seen it and their MJ shrines have remained intact so I don’t think that’s at all true.

You obviously have a bias and yet are telling everyone else they do and your comments about "MJ shrines" don't help your argument. How is it true the documentary you have seen half of is not biased? Its 2 guys, who may or may not be telling the truth, and its being presented to the world as ground breaking new evidence so HBO can make some money.

You've been sucked in.

joe40

Could you imagine a global personality nowadays, living with "Children" in the manner that Michael Jackson did. There would be serious alarm bells going off. I'm not talking about the allegations just the stuff in the public domain.

I can appreciate people enjoying his music, but his behaviour was way beyond normal or healthy. You can point to his own upbringing, that may be a reason, but not an excuse.

I like his music but there always had a shadow of suspicion over him, so could never understand the adulation he receives
Even if abuse never happened that was not a healthy life experience for those kids. He is accountable for that (Along with their parents)

Boggles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is also a matter of public record that court ordered searches of Neverland returned materials of boys with little or no clothing. The materials were not illegal to own at the time, but would be now.

No they wouldn't be, the books are stocked in public libraries in America to this day.

Jackson had over 1 million books apparently.

The only "pornography" they found was consistent with a heterosexual males tastes, 6 computers with their full history going back years intact threw up the exact same pattern.

He was under surveillance for 10 years, Neverland was randomly search by police, the FBI and child services, no evidence of wrong doing was ever found, the best the prosecutor who had an absolute horn for Jackson could do was put a bunch of criminals on the stand.

LuckyLloyd

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

He had an unhealthy friendship with boys. He also had an unhealthy friendship with a monkey. He probably shared a bed with the monkey.

Unhealthy friendships are not hard evidence of anything, unless he's going to be accused of touching the monkey next.

I'm not trying to demean abuse, I'm just saying in this case there's no hard evidence. The police investigated him and searched his house and at most found adult porn.

Until we see multiple independent accounts, not motivated by financial gain and also hard evidence, people are rightly going to keep an open mind.

A documentary is not a court trial so lets not pretend it is.

That's not correct. They found materials of young boys in little or no clothing that was legal to own at the time. But there is an overarching background context here that is requiring a devout faith and belief in MJ for you to say that 2 + 2 = 5 and not 4.

Deebles McBeebles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm starting to. I understand that there were charges ultimately thrown out in court because of the difficulty of proving beyond reasonable doubt in that setting.

I hope you don't like good music because oh boy! So how has this documentary changed your opinion? Presumably you still listened to him after the first allegations were made?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

However, it is inarguable that he had objectively unhealthy friendships with young boys of an obsessional nature. It is inarguable that he was allowed access to those boys that would objectively trigger alarm bells today. It is inarguable that he shared a bed with those boys in an unsupervised fashion. It is also a matter of public record that court ordered searches of Neverland returned materials of boys with little or no clothing. The materials were not illegal to own at the time, but would be now.

All of that is beyond suspect and, to be honest, more than enough to indicate that Jackson was a weird and troubled man. He avoided prosecution in court, but the two men telling their story in this latest documentary are highly highly credible. I bought their stories as truth. And ultimately, within the inarguably weird context above, you need some level of belief to think that his relationship with young boys could have been entirely innocent in nature. .

I agree fully that he was a weird and troubled man. I'm not so sure these stories are truth though.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

His handlers and those working for him who facilitated all of this have a huge amount to answer for imo.

If there was anything other than being weird to facilitate, absolutely.

retro:electro wrote: »

Come on. Surely mjisbaeforlifexoxoxo.blogspot.com has something you can pull from?

Another disappointing comment from you retro.

retro:electro

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's not correct. They found materials of young boys in little or no clothing that was legal to own at the time. But there is an overarching background context here that is requiring a devout faith and belief in MJ for you to say that 2 + 2 = 5 and not 4.

And “legal” books written by paedophiles with the intention of supporting the grooming process. But yeah, sure we all have those kinds of books floating about :rolleyes:

Deebles McBeebles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But there is an overarching background context here that is requiring a devout faith and belief in MJ for you to say that 2 + 2 = 5 and not 4.

The same could be said for the opposing opinion.

lee_baby_simms

I'll be interested to read peoples opinions in here tomorrow after part 2.

When Jimmy Saville docs aired a few years ago i don't remember the outcry about them being one sided.

A documentary ultimately doesn't have to offer 'both sides'. A documentary about WW2 aren't obligated to include the opinions of holocaust deniers. The job of the filmmaker is to tell a story. Its up to the viewers to use their own intuition and decide whether their story adds up.

Leaving Neverland is primarily about the lives of two men who claim to be abused. Part 2 delves into the how they processed what happened to them as they got older, got married had kids etc. I found it very illuminating with regard to the nature of child abuse and how that manifested in their later life.

I genuinely watched it with an open mind and it wasn't until part 2 that I found the accusers fully credible.

suicide_circus

didnt the cops find apparently legitimate books of artistic photography of nude boys? pretty weird in itself but when taken in the context of everything else a clear red flag surely?

Boggles

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

When Jimmy Saville docs aired a few years ago i don't remember the outcry about them being one sided.

Saville wasn't put under surveillance by the FBI for 10 years and subjected to a farcical show trial to appease a lunatic Prosecutor.

There is absolutely no comparison. It's quite silly to keep bringing it up.

ToBeFrank123

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's not correct. They found materials of young boys in little or no clothing that was legal to own at the time. But there is an overarching background context here that is requiring a devout faith and belief in MJ for you to say that 2 + 2 = 5 and not 4.

AS Boggles said he owned 1 million books, so at least one is going to contain books like that. Again not solid evidence of anything. And you can be assured if he owned 1 million books the vast majority he didn't even read.

I'm not a mega fan of MJ but think his music was decent for its time.

I haven't seen any credible evidence of anything yet. So far its just uncorroborated accusations.

One other thing, the police in the UK and US have spent decades and millions if not tens of millions investigating famous names based on accounts that would not hold up in a court of law.

Meanwhile they let real abusers in places like Rochdale act with impunity and ignored genuine victims accounts who had real evidence.

The police in the US could have easily caught MJ if they wanted with wiretaps and the like.

ToBeFrank123

suicide_circus wrote: »

didnt the cops find apparently legitimate books of artistic photography of nude boys? pretty weird in itself but when taken in the context of everything else a clear red flag surely?

Weird yes, indicative of anything else, probably not. If it was then anyone who owns books about native tribes featuring naked children could be implied to be guilty of something. Or anyone who goes to a nudist camp, etc

suicide_circus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Weird yes, indicative of anything else, probably not. If it was then anyone who owns books about native tribes featuring naked children could be implied to be guilty of something. Or anyone who goes to a nudist camp, etc

thats why i mention the context in which multiple boys have accused him of molestation.

the man is dead and was cleared in court so all this is fairly pointless.

retro:electro

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

You've been sucked in.

I’ve been “sucked in” by absolutely nothing. I’ve been “debating” (not much to debate imo) this case for years on this site. I’ve read basically everything the abuse deniers have to offer. I’ve formed my position after years of interest in this case, podcast, documentaries, anti, pro, you name it, I’ve watched/listened. I’m only delighted the two guys are finally getting a chance to tell their side and thankfully most people aren’t blind to the many red flags waving before them and believe them. I have seen absoluely nothing to defend or justify why a grown man would seek to surround himself with a harem of young boys before replacing them with more young boys once they’ve hit puberty. I’ve seen absoluely nothing to justify or defend this “child in a man’s body” suggestion which seems to only refer to his life inside the four walls of his bedroom, because in every other aspect of his life he was a highly skilled and competent man whose lyrics were sexually charged and not that of what a redundant mind would create.

People defending his behaviour (both the sexual abuse and drug abuse) need to have a good look at themselves and realise they wouldn’t make those justifications for any other grown man on the planet. He wasn’t special, he wasn’t Peter Pan, he wasn’t child-like. He was a professional and serial groomer, manipulator and molestor.

ToBeFrank123

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I'll be interested to read peoples opinions in here tomorrow after part 2.

When Jimmy Saville docs aired a few years ago i don't remember the outcry about them being one sided.

A documentary ultimately doesn't have to offer 'both sides'. A documentary about WW2 aren't obligated to include the opinions of holocaust deniers. The job of the filmmaker is to tell a story. Its up to the viewers to use their own intuition and decide whether their story adds up.

Leaving Neverland is primarily about the lives of two men who claim to be abused. Part 2 delves into the how they processed what happened to them as they got older, got married had kids etc. I found it very illuminating with regard to the nature of child abuse and how that manifested in their later life.

I genuinely watched it with an open mind and it wasn't until part 2 that I found the accusers fully credible.

Hundreds of independent witnesses came forward against Saville. Most if not all had nothing financial to gain from it. Some of his assaults were recorded on camera or on microphones. Many victims complained to the police who simply ignored them. The case against Saville is pretty water tight. As it was against the likes of Max Clifford who was tried in a court of law and found guilty.

turbbo

10 undeniable facts about the sexual-abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

1. There is no dispute that, at age 34, Michael Jackson slept more than 30 nights in a row in the same bed with 13-year-old Jordie Chandler at the boy’s house with Chandler’s mother present. He also slept in the same bed with Jordie Chandler at Chandler’s father’s house. The parents were divorced.

2. So far, five boys Michael Jackson shared beds with have accused him of abuse: Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson, and Jimmy Safechuck. Jackson had the same nickname for Chandler and Arvizo: “Rubba.” He called Robson “Little One” and Safechuck “Applehead.”

3. Jackson paid $25 million to settle the Chandlers’ lawsuit, with $18 million going to Jordie, $2.5 million to each of the parents, and the rest to lawyers. Jackson said he paid that sum to avoid something “long and drawn out.” Francia also received $2.4 million from Jackson.

4. Michael Jackson suffered from the skin discoloration disease vitiligo. Jordie Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings.

5. The hallway leading to Jackson’s bedroom was a serious security zone covered by video and wired for sound so that the steps of anyone approaching would make ding-dong sounds.

6. Jackson had an extensive collection of adult erotic material he kept in a suitcase next to his bed, including S&M bondage photos and a study of naked boys. Forensic experts with experience in the Secret Service found the fingerprints of boys alongside Jackson’s on the same pages. Jackson also had bondage sculptures of women with ball gags in their mouths on his desk, in full view of the boys who slept there.

7. According to the Neverland staff interviewed by the Santa Barbara authorities, no one ever saw or knew of a woman spending the night with Michael Jackson, including his two spouses, Debbie Rowe or Lisa Marie Presley. Rowe, the mother of two of Jackson’s children, made it clear to the Santa Barbara authorities that she never had sex with Jackson.

8. The parents of boys Jackson shared beds with were courted assiduously and given myriad expensive gifts. Wade Robson’s mother testified in the 2005 trial that she funneled wages through Jackson’s company and was given a permanent resident visa. Jimmy Safechuck’s parents got a house. Jordie Chandler’s mother got a diamond bracelet.

9. Two of the fathers of those who have accused Jackson, Jordie Chandler and Wade Robson, committed suicide. Both were estranged from their sons at the time.

10. In a 2002 documentary, Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson told Martin Bashir there was nothing wrong with sharing his bed with boys.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

He was a professional and serial groomer, manipulator and molestor.

Allegedly.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

I’ve been “debating” (not much to debate imo) this case for years on this site.

Really, what other threads on this site have you "debated" on about this case?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Really, what other threads on this site have you "debated" on?

How about you answer my question first boggles. I’m still waiting for your “proof” where the judge called the two men liars.

LuckyLloyd

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I hope you don't like good music because oh boy! So how has this documentary changed your opinion? Presumably you still listened to him after the first allegations were made?

The first allegations were made when I was a kid. The second series of allegations were made when I was in University and barely following the news. These allegations are made now and I, as a man in his mid thirties, can look at it and say that it ****ing stinks.

I love music, and I loved MJ's music. But **** that, it's irreconcilably tainted for me.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I agree fully that he was a weird and troubled man. I'm not so sure these stories are truth though.

You're not sure, but I believed those men last night. And even if I didn't believe them, the outright unacceptability of his behaviours around and interaction with young boys was shocking to me.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

If there was anything other than being weird to facilitate, absolutely.

I find their facilitation of interactions of this nature contemptible. It's putting young boys in a fundamentally unsafe situation.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

The same could be said for the opposing opinion.

You and those sitting there saying 'well never proven in a court of law, nah nah nah' are holding a mindset I genuinely cannot understand. They were little boys for **** sake.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

How about you answer my question first boggles. I’m still waiting for your “proof” where the judge called the two men liars.

Did I say 2 men, apologies he found Robson to be a complete liar, but because Wade was steering the ship and introduced the other lad in it by extension he was probably peddling the same mistruths. 1.62 billion will test the truth a ickle bit.

So as the document I posted confirms, the Judge found Robson to be a complete and utter unreliable BS artist. It's not 3rd party information it's a direct quote from the deposition papers.

Anyway over to you my dear?

retro:electro wrote: »

I’ve been “debating” (not much to debate imo) this case for years on this site.

Boggles wrote: »

Really, what other threads on this site have you "debated" on about this case?

I just want to get a flavor of your opinion before this thread and has it changed any bit. Because of course the "documentary" does not contain any new information or least of all actual evidence.

In your own time, I won't rant and rave like a crazed banshee every 2 minutes for the links.

ToBeFrank123

turbbo wrote: »

10 undeniable facts about the sexual-abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

1. There is no dispute that, at age 34, Michael Jackson slept more than 30 nights in a row in the same bed with 13-year-old Jordie Chandler at the boy’s house with Chandler’s mother present. He also slept in the same bed with Jordie Chandler at Chandler’s father’s house. The parents were divorced.

2. So far, five boys Michael Jackson shared beds with have accused him of abuse: Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson, and Jimmy Safechuck. Jackson had the same nickname for Chandler and Arvizo: “Rubba.” He called Robson “Little One” and Safechuck “Applehead.”

3. Jackson paid $25 million to settle the Chandlers’ lawsuit, with $18 million going to Jordie, $2.5 million to each of the parents, and the rest to lawyers. Jackson said he paid that sum to avoid something “long and drawn out.” Francia also received $2.4 million from Jackson.

4. Michael Jackson suffered from the skin discoloration disease vitiligo. Jordie Chandler drew a picture of the markings on the underside of Jackson’s penis. His drawings were sealed in an envelope. A few months later, investigators photographed Jackson’s genitalia. The photographs matched Chandler’s drawings.

5. The hallway leading to Jackson’s bedroom was a serious security zone covered by video and wired for sound so that the steps of anyone approaching would make ding-dong sounds.

6. Jackson had an extensive collection of adult erotic material he kept in a suitcase next to his bed, including S&M bondage photos and a study of naked boys. Forensic experts with experience in the Secret Service found the fingerprints of boys alongside Jackson’s on the same pages. Jackson also had bondage sculptures of women with ball gags in their mouths on his desk, in full view of the boys who slept there.

7. According to the Neverland staff interviewed by the Santa Barbara authorities, no one ever saw or knew of a woman spending the night with Michael Jackson, including his two spouses, Debbie Rowe or Lisa Marie Presley. Rowe, the mother of two of Jackson’s children, made it clear to the Santa Barbara authorities that she never had sex with Jackson.

8. The parents of boys Jackson shared beds with were courted assiduously and given myriad expensive gifts. Wade Robson’s mother testified in the 2005 trial that she funneled wages through Jackson’s company and was given a permanent resident visa. Jimmy Safechuck’s parents got a house. Jordie Chandler’s mother got a diamond bracelet.

9. Two of the fathers of those who have accused Jackson, Jordie Chandler and Wade Robson, committed suicide. Both were estranged from their sons at the time.

10. In a 2002 documentary, Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson told Martin Bashir there was nothing wrong with sharing his bed with boys.

Most of these would be considered creepy rather than indicative of anything. One or two should be treated more seriously. But none prove he was anally raping anyone. In my view if there was no sex involved, it cannot be considered grooming, but just that he liked the company of young boys which of itself is not a crime.

BTW, I am not defending MJ the individual per se. I am depending the general concept of an individual's right to their good name until it can be established otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

SusieBlue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most of these would be considered creepy rather than indicative of anything. One or two should be treated more seriously. But none prove he was anally raping anyone. In my view if there was no sex involved, it cannot be considered grooming, just that he liked the company of young boys which of itself is not a crime.

You are completely wrong on that count.

Deebles McBeebles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You and those sitting there saying 'well never proven in a court of law, nah nah nah' are holding a mindset I genuinely cannot understand. They were little boys for **** sake.

So its better to go down the guilty until proven innocent route? Or guilty until proven innocent twice in this case.

I don't know the truth, no one on here does but if we start being so sure on allegations, we're in trouble.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Did I say 2 men?, apologies he found Robson to be a complete liar

Ah so you’re admitting you were wrong well at least that’s something. Looks like there’s only one liar here and that’s you, posting make believe stories and then ignoring time after time when you get pulled up on it... but then again that’s nothing new to most of here who can see you’re taking pony. Oh what do ya know... I guess it is

Boggles wrote: »

point out the bloody obvious day

after all :pac:

Also the judge never called anyone a liar. Do you honestly think a quote like that wouldn’t be news somewhere and at least searchable through Google? So yeah.. whenever you can find me that quote I’ll be all ears. In the meantime here’s what their lawyers said ....“There were never any rulings to the court as to their testimony. The court ruled that Robson had filed his lawsuit too late to get any of Jackson’s estate”

Boggles wrote: »

I just want to get a flavor of your opinion before this thread and has it changed any bit.

And please!! You think I’m going to link you to my old posts so can stalk everything I’ve ever written and pull it apart as fodder?! I know you’re obsessed with me and all but this thread isn’t about me or my past posts.
But at least we’ve confirmed you’re a liar

Boggles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The first allegations were made when I was a kid. The second series of allegations were made when I was in University and barely following the news. These allegations are made now and I, as a man in his mid thirties, can look at it and say that it ****ing stinks.

So you haven't followed any of the allegations and your basing your opinion on watching one half of a "documentary" which unashamedly states that balance was not on the agenda?

turbbo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most of these would be considered creepy rather than indicative of anything. One or two should be treated more seriously. But none prove he was anally raping anyone. In my view if there was no sex involved, it cannot be considered grooming, but just that he liked the company of young boys which of itself is not a crime.

BTW, I am not defending MJ the individual per se. I am depending the general concept of an individual's right to their good name until it can be established beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law otherwise.

So it's just creepy that a kid is able to draw skin patterns from a individuals penis from memory?? Xray vision maybe?

On your 2nd point with the court of law - believing that the courts get it right all the time is equal to believing in Santa Claus.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

And please!! You think I’m going to link you to my old posts so can stalk everything I’ve ever written and pull it apart as fodder?!

Am there is a search function on the site that shows all your old posts?

So that's a no, you won't back up your claim?

retro:electro wrote: »

I know you’re obsessed with me and all

This isn't the first time you have accused someone of this who has disagreed with you. Its' quite strange.

Listen love there is absolutely no one obsessed with you, no one. You do understand that right?

You are basically insignificant on the grand scheme of things. Sorry I had to be the one break it to you.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Am there is a search function on the site that shows all your old posts?

Off you pop so

LuckyLloyd

Boggles wrote: »

So you haven't followed any of the allegations and your basing your opinion on watching one half of a "documentary" which unashamedly states that balance was not on the agenda?

Yeah that's what happens. We watch something, we read up around it, we reach / change our views.

I believed the men, but even if I didn't I found his relationship and access to boys completely and utterly abhorrent. It violated everything we now know in terms of keeping kids safe and out of harm's way.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Off you pop so

It's not up to me to back up your claim.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

It's not up to me to back up your claim.

Please, I’m not your personal secretary :pac:


Anyway, moving on to the things that actually matter..