Micky Jackson in trouble again

El_Bee

Boggles

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

Of course, that his been done to death, it's not new, we have known about it for 16 years, his relationship with children was unacceptable at every level in terms of child welfare.

But you said you love his music. Surely even for that reason you owe it to yourself to look beyond one heavily biased "documentary" with 2 men and some very questionable motives.

retro:electro

What I don’t get is the fact that some of his defenders seem to acknowledge that his relationship with children was unacceptable and inappropriate.. but don’t believe those very same children when they make the exact same claims of over-stepping boundaries. If you accept he was inappropriate with children under the glare of the world’s media, why is it so hard to make the logical leap that he could have been even more inappropriate within the confines of his (highly secured) bedroom?

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

I’ve been “sucked in” by absolutely nothing. I’ve been “debating” (not much to debate imo) this case for years on this site.

Can you link to another thread where this was discussed other than this one which is about 6 weeks old? I'm not sure I believe this statement.

Before you point me to the search function like the others, I've already been there and can't seem to find the reference at all?

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

Can you link to another thread where this was discussed other than this one which is about 6 weeks old? I'm not sure I believe this statement.

Before you point me to the search function like the others, I've already been there and can't seem to find the reference at all?

I get 475 page results when I search his name and you want me to link them all?
Your search results must be broken. Maybe ask a mod to help you out.

8-10

turbbo wrote: »

10 undeniable facts about the

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.

This part is definitely in dispute

ToBeFrank123

SusieBlue wrote: »

You are completely wrong on that count.

I better stop giving my nephews gifts so if thats the case. For fear of being labelled something. Because thats the direction society is sadly heading.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

I get 475 page results when I search his name and you want me to link them all?

No, just any post of yours on the topic before this one. I think 475 is the total on his name across the site, I just searched his name in your posts and just see this.

I'm presuming you posted in a thread without using his name which is making it trickier.....just link to any of your posts over the years outside this thread please

joe40

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 otherwise beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

That is the burden of proof required to secure a conviction in a court of law.

In this case there can be no irrefutable evidence or a court case. Your view of Michael Jackson will depend on the well established facts which have been listed above, which in themselves are very damaging to anyone's "good name"
And also how credible you find the witnesses on the doc.

For my own part I knew the Michael Jackson stuff but honestly haven't given it much thought. (laziness and apathy on my part)

But just looking at his behaviour through the prism of what is acceptable these days, it is very damaging.

Also a salutary lesson for all the people complaining about "metoo" and "PC gone mad" these days.

This was only the nineties and look at what a grown man with wealth was able to get away with in the full glare public eye.

retro:electro

Ya I won’t be doing that :rolleyes:
Find something else to do with your time that doesn’t involve stalking my old posts.

8-10

retro:electro wrote: »

Ya I won’t be doing that :rolleyes:
Find something else to do with your time that doesn’t involve stalking my old posts.

You don't recognise the hypocrisy in badgering another poster to back up a statement with a link and you being asked precisely the same thing?

For you it's even easier as it's your own posts.

I think we can all see that you are lying about discussing this matter for years on this site. Happy for you to prove that wrong but from everything I can see you didn't ever discuss this case outside of this thread and you are deliberately making misleading statements to further your agenda and you expect of others what you cannot do yourself - presumably as you would have to admit to lying.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

Ya I won’t be doing that :rolleyes:
Find something else to do with your time that doesn’t involve stalking my old posts.

You aren't backing up your claim then? You claimed it in response to my post so just wondering.

I get you want to exhume MJ and have him publicly hanged based on allegations but anytime someone comes at you with a difficult question its ignored or deflected.

Sephiroth_dude

MOD
Folks just a gentle reminder too keep things on topic and civil please.

thanks

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

You don't recognise the hypocrisy in badgering another poster to back up a statement with a link and you being asked precisely the same thing?

I asked them to take their own advice and support an easily debunked misconception and they avoided and struggled for hours before finally relenting and admitting they lied. Their point was highly contentious and potentially influential to those reading here who may be susceptible to bullshlt like that.

You’re asking me to provide proof that I’ve spoken about MJ here before which is of absoluely no interest to no one only your petty self who is struggling to make a point and “prove” something.

The search function is the same for you and me. If you’re struggling ask a mod. This thread isn’t about me or my past posts so I’m going to have to kindly ask you to move on or I’ll have to put you on ignore. It’s weird.

LuckyLloyd

8-10 wrote: »

You don't recognise the hypocrisy in badgering another poster to back up a statement with a link and you being asked precisely the same thing?

For you it's even easier as it's your own posts.

I think we can all see that you are lying about discussing this matter for years on this site. Happy for you to prove that wrong but from everything I can see you didn't ever discuss this case outside of this thread and you are deliberately making misleading statements to further your agenda and you expect of others what you cannot do yourself - presumably as you would have to admit to lying.

Heya man, you're dealing with an account that's probably been around longer than the join date and - as such - may not want previous accounts disclosed.

I also think this exchange is beside the point, and both sides can happily drop it.

There are a lot of closed accounts in this thread for example:

https://www.boards.ie/mobile/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055603603

Dakota Dan

Threads like these get old very quick with the handbag swinging.

ToBeFrank123

I will throw something out there that occurred to me.

Lets say during the 1990s MJ adopted nine or ten African or Asian orphans, brought them back to the US to share his house. Some may have occasionally shared his bed, like all parents adoptive or not do sometimes with their children.

What would he be labelled then?

And what if a prominent female popstar did the same?

Two different reactions I'd say. One, isn't she great. The other, he's a creepy perv.

Deebles McBeebles

retro:electro wrote: »

This thread isn’t about me or my past posts so I’m going to have to kindly ask you to move on or I’ll have to put you on ignore. It’s weird.

You brought up your posts, no one else. And another implication that someone else is obsessed with you does not help your credibility. Particularly as you refuse to answer any questions you don't like.

Anyway, happy to move on before I get accused of something too.

Hannibal_Smith

retro:electro wrote: »

I asked them to take their own advice and support an easily debunked misconception and they avoided and struggled for hours before finally relenting and admitting they lied. Their point was highly contentious and potentially influential to those reading here who may be susceptible to bullshlt like that.

You’re asking me to provide proof that I’ve spoken about MJ here before which is of absoluely no interest to no one only your petty self who is struggling to make a point and “prove” something.

The search function is the same for you and me. If you’re struggling ask a mod. This thread isn’t about me or my past posts so I’m going to have to kindly ask you to move on or I’ll have to put you on ignore. It’s weird.

I'm interested:D

Its not weird, you presented the point to try and make yourself an authority on the topic being discussed.

retro:electro

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

You brought up your posts, no one else. And another implication that someone else is obsessed with you does not help your credibility. Particularly as you refuse to answer any questions you don't like.

Anyway, happy to move on before I get accused of something too.

Because I’m well aware why people are asking and it’s purely out of petty interest, their intentions are not genuine and that much is obvious.
I’m also struggling to see why so many have issues with the search function when it’s working fine for me.

And I didn’t present the point to make myself an “authority” on anything. I was counter-arguing a point which stated I had been suckered in by the documentary which was inaccurate. I was giving balance, which is what you guys love right?

8-10 wrote: »

You don't recognise the hypocrisy in badgering another poster to back up a statement with a link and you being asked precisely the same thing?
.

I also didn’t “badger” anyone. They were free to decline my request for further proof if they wished. They didn’t, and it turned out to be rubbish.


Happy to move along also.

ToBeFrank123

turbbo wrote: »

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.

You're right, a kangaroo court, social media or TV documentary is a far better way to try someone.

What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

My guess is if it was a courtcase, the judge would rule most witness evidence inadmissible, grant the defence a right of reply and also a chance to examine evidence.

None of that was afforded them in this one sided documentary.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

I asked them to take their own advice and support an easily debunked misconception and they avoided and struggled for hours before finally relenting and admitting they lied. Their point was highly contentious and potentially influential to those reading here who may be susceptible to bullshlt like that.

Wooah.

Nobody lied.

And there was no struggling for hours.

You demanded the link at 10:27

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109609874&postcount=1127

You got it at 11:28.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109609874&postcount=1127

The world doesn't stop and start at you convenience, you do realize that?

I said both men, I meant Robson, I corrected myself, that is not lying. I had the decency to correct it. Unlike yourself who is currently struggling to wriggle free from your own BS.

SoundsRight

Watched pt.1 last night. Very uncomfortable viewing at times. I grew up after his peak years, so not as emotionally invested in him as others. He was famous in a way you can't get anymore, so I understand why people refuse to believe despite it being so blatantly obvious.

I've no doubt in my kind he was a predator and a pedophile. There's no other reasonable explanation for his behaviour.

Boggles

SoundsRight wrote: »

Watched pt.1 last night. Very uncomfortable viewing at times. I grew up after his peak years, so not as emotionally invested in him as others. He was famous in a way you can't get anymore, so I understand why people refuse to believe despite it being so blatantly obvious.

Hang on. I have absolutely no emotional investment in him or any other celebrity dead or otherwise. I am not a fan of his music nor do I condone his "creepy" lifestyle.

You base your opinion (or at least I do) on the available evidence and you weigh it up to form that opinion, emotions have nothing to with it.

TBF the only people on this thread who appear to be getting hysterically overemotional are the ones who believe without doubt the 2 men in this "documentary" are telling the 100% truth.

I called got a paedo apologist for having a different opinion FFS!

So just because you or anyone else finds something "blatantly obvious" that doesn't mean it is or it should be the general accepted conscious and anyone that disagrees with that is some sort of emotional retard.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I said both men, I meant Robson, I corrected myself, that is not lying. I had the decency to correct it.

You’re right. It only took you over two hours and four prompts to clarify to finally admit you were talking out your jacksy.
At least you’re improving.

BorneTobyWilde

Every second commercial on TV is using a Jackson song, still on TV every AD break.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re right. It only took you over two hours and four prompts to clarify to finally admit you were talking out your jacksy.
At least you’re improving.

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't read all your posts.

Also how long has it been since you were asked to back up your claim? Also 4 prompts in such a short space of time is fairly creepy, baring in mind you accuse people of being obsessed with you.

Anyway, Tick, Tock?

Sephiroth_dude

Boggles wrote: »

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't read all your posts.

Also how long has it been since you were asked to back up your claim? Also 4 prompts in such a short space of time is fairly creepy, baring in mind you accuse people of being obsessed with you.

Anyway, Tick, Tock?

MOD

STOP Badgering retro:electro for their post history, anymore of this nonsense now and I'll hand out warnings/Infractions, keep it on topic and CIVIL please

Boggles

joe40 wrote: »

Also a salutary lesson for all the people complaining about "metoo" and "PC gone mad" these days.

This was only the nineties and look at what a grown man with wealth was able to get away with in the full glare public eye.

Not just the public, the FBI, sheriffs department, child services and the DA.

Not one piece of evidence showed that any child was mistreated or there was an attempt to mistreat any child.

ToBeFrank123

Boggles wrote: »

Not just the public, the FBI, sheriffs department, child services and the DA.

Not one piece of evidence showed that any child was mistreated or there was an attempt to mistreat any child.

But they don't count Boggles.

What counts are a one sided documentary/propaganda as well as the opinions of social media commentators. These are far more qualified than judges, FBI, DA and so on. Maybe these institutions should be wrapped up altogether, courts shut down and all suspects tried by documentary makers in future.

We still are left with allegations but no hard evidence to back up what these two witnesses are saying.

allybhoy

CFlat wrote: »

If the justice system in America, which is well known to be efficient and ruthless and takes no prisoners, no matter who you are, couldn't prove that Jackson was being inappropriate with children when he was alive, I can't get my head around why people think he is now. Is it just because a couple of lads who look well and speak well say he is?

Do you think OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

But they don't count Boggles.

What counts are a one sided documentary/propaganda as well as the opinions of social media commentators. These are far more qualified than judges, FBI, DA and so on. Maybe these institutions should be wrapped up altogether, courts shut down and all suspects tried by documentary makers in future.

We still are left with allegations but no hard evidence to back up what these two witnesses are saying.

Just a Poll on twitter.

Be done with it.

:pac:

Boggles

allybhoy wrote: »

Do you think OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

I don't.

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

I don't.

I mean its hardly surprising, but wow. Lol.

joe40

Boggles wrote: »

Not just the public, the FBI, sheriffs department, child services and the DA.

Not one piece of evidence showed that any child was mistreated or there was an attempt to mistreat any child.

So a grown man sleeping with 13 year old boys (his own admission) is ok in your book, if the Police/FBI can't prove anything.

Deebles McBeebles

allybhoy wrote: »

Do you think OJ Simpson murdered his wife?

I do and freely admit the US justice system makes mistakes, such as OJ. I don't think this is the case with MJ though. However, I may be proven wrong. Some people are so certain they can't even wait for this to be brought back to court, its justice by documentary.

Boggles

joe40 wrote: »

So a grown man sleeping with 13 year old boys (his own admission) is ok in your book, if the Police/FBI can't prove anything.

Well it's not just his own admission it's the admission of several boys too.

But no it's no okay in my book, as I have said several times it's beyond creepy.

But again and this is the important part, that doesn't mean he raped the children.

You do understand the distinction?

Sharing a bed or room with someone is not illegal, raping them is.

You need evidence to prove the second part as the first part is common knowledge, there is no evidence despite constant surveillance and a prosecutor who would have crawled out over his Granny to nail Jackson.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

I mean its hardly surprising, but wow. Lol.

What do you mean?

ToBeFrank123

joe40 wrote: »

So a grown man sleeping with 13 year old boys (his own admission) is ok in your book, if the Police/FBI can't prove anything.

Did a certain famous female popstar sleep in the same bed as her adopted children?

If so I guess she is equally guilty.

If a woman sleeps with children who she is not related to, its fine. If a man sleeps with children he is not related to, he must be one thing.

I'm not saying MJ did or didn't do anything, but sharing a bed with someone while odd, is proof of nothing.

Look we all know MJ was odd. His best friend was a monkey. He lived in essentially a childrens theme park. It seems creepy now but oddly at the time no-one passed any heed. When you are as rich as he was you can live any way you want as long as you don't break the law.

roots2branches

Thanks for sharing, it's fascinating. Everyone on this thread should listen to this before casting judgment.

8-10 wrote: »

Podcast is "Reason Bound" and episode is called "Pirates in Neverland". It's on iTunes, pocket casts etc. but I'll link to the YouTube one below. It's a full 3hrs long but it's worth a listen I think to give a fuller picture of the context of the previous allegations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J1JQaIrxRU

SusieBlue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Did a certain famous female popstar sleep in the same bed as her adopted children?

If so I guess she is equally guilty.

If a woman sleeps with children who she is not related to, its fine. If a man sleeps with children he is not related to, he must be one thing.

I'm not saying MJ did or didn't anything, but sharing a bed with someone while odd, is proof of nothing.

Look we all know MJ was odd. His best friend was a monkey. He lived in essentially a childrens theme park. It seems creepy now but oddly at the time no-one passed any heed. When you are as rich as he was you can live any way you want as long as you don't break the law.

Those were her children, she was their mother.
Completely different situation and a very poor justification for MJ's propensity for bed sharing with pre-pubescent boys he wasn't related to.

ToBeFrank123

SusieBlue wrote: »

Those were her children, she was their mother.
Completely different situation and a very poor justification for MJ's propensity for bed sharing with pre-pubescent boys he wasn't related to.

She wasn't related to them though except with a piece of paper. Would it have made MJs behavior acceptable if he had adopted the children?

I just think there is a level of hypocrisy going on.

SusieBlue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She wasn't related to them though except with a piece of paper. Would it have made MJs behavior acceptable if he had adopted the children?

I just think there is a level of hypocrisy going on.

Unless you can produce evidence that MJ was in fact the legal adoptive father of the children he shared beds with, your point is invalid, and completely irrelevant.

The hypocrisy is astounding but not in the way you think.

jam_mac_jam

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She wasn't related to them though except with a piece of paper. Would it have made MJs behavior acceptable if he had adopted the children?

I just think there is a level of hypocrisy going on.

Maybe if he adopted them then it would be the same thing. But he didn't so it isn't'. Not really relevant in the slightest.

ToBeFrank123

SusieBlue wrote: »

Unless you can produce evidence that MJ was in fact the legal adoptive father of the children he shared beds with, your point is invalid.

The hypocrisy is astounding but not in the way you think.

Honestly this is laughable. I'm not condoning him sleeping with kids. You have yet to definitely prove he raped them though. Anything other than the testimony of two guys at least one of whose case has already been through out by a judge.

There is a reason for a statute of limitations. Its to stop people waiting years until all the evidence has been destroyed, key witnesses passed away or the accused deceased. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes to accurately investigate something.

So if these guys had a cast iron case years ago, why wait until now? When evidence and the accused is dead and can't defend himself.

As I keep repeating, documentaries are not the place to put someone on trial. Do you at least accept that?

retro:electro

I mean if you have to try and force a pathetic point so badly that you resort to comparing a middle aged man sharing a bed with little boys to a legal guardian sharing a bed with her children, it’s time to just turn off the computer.
Embarrassing stuff.

Boggles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

So if these guys had a cast iron case years ago, why wait until now? When evidence and the accused is dead and can't defend himself.

The Jackson estate was broke, it apparently owed 500m when he died, it was the reason he was going back on the road, there was no money to be shaken down from it.

It's now worth over a billion, maybe 2, according to some reports.

Deebles McBeebles

Retro, as much as I don't want to engage you again, you've embarrassed yourself today. All you've done is make sly digs at people while sticking your fingers in your ears when someone asks you a question that you find tough. A completely closed mind when it comes to anything other than your own opinion. Ignore and deflect. That's embarrassing.

Deebles McBeebles

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As I keep repeating, documentaries are not the place to put someone on trial. Do you at least accept that?

You could say water is wet and some wouldn't agree.

SusieBlue

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Honestly this is laughable. I'm not condoning him sleeping with kids. You have yet to definitely prove he raped them though. Anything other than the testimony of two guys at least one of whose case has already been through out by a judge.

There is a reason for a statute of limitations. Its to stop people waiting years until all the evidence has been destroyed, key witnesses passed away or the accused deceased. The longer you wait, the harder it becomes to accurately investigate something.

So if these guys had a cast iron case years ago, why wait until now? When evidence and the accused is dead and can't defend himself.

As I keep repeating, documentaries are not the place to put someone on trial. Do you at least accept that?

Talk about shifting the goalposts.

You said that him sharing a bed with preteen boys was akin to an adoptive mother sharing a bed with her children.
They are in no way similar and comparing them is extremely disingenuous.

By comparing it to a mother/children scenario you ARE condoning it, because you are implying its normal and acceptable behaviour and it isn't.
You are justifying it by saying the two are on the same wavelength.
They aren't and its actually very offensive to suggest otherwise.

I refuse to acknowledge the rest of your post as that wasn't the point I was arguing and had nothing to do with your original post.