Micky Jackson in trouble again

Theboinkmaster

tylercheribini wrote: »

Again referring to my earlier post, to all the nay-sayers, what is the precise figure of accusers to be reached before they can be believed? What arbitrary number? I am genuinely intrigued.

This has already been answered - one (1).

ToBeFrank123

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Lads you're making a show of yourselves blindly defending this monster. You're coming across on the same level of this absolute cretin:

I could be wrong but I think you just accused posters of being cretins for expressing misgivings about the one sidedness of the documentary. And that's primarily what this thread is about, the documentary.

I don't like reporting posts but I've reported yours.

You are not adding anything of value to the thread other than throwing out insults like confetti.

Jerichoholic

No I called the guy in that video a cretin. Nobody else. What great comprehension skills you have.

Jesus Christ

Jerichoholic

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think you just accused posters of being cretins for expressing misgivings about the one sidedness of the documentary. And that's primarily what this thread is about, the documentary.

I don't like reporting posts but I've reported yours.

You are not adding anything of value to the thread other than throwing out insults like confetti.

Also the thread is about Michael Jackson being in trouble, there's another thread about the documentary.

I should report you for blatant misinformation.

ToBeFrank123

Jerichoholic wrote: »

No I called the guy in that video a cretin. Nobody else. What great comprehension skills you have.

Jesus Christ

Wow another angry post.

So people who have questioned the one-sidedness of the documentary are not "on the same level as an absolute cretin" ? Glad we cleared that up.

Carry on...

Theboinkmaster

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Also the thread is about Michael Jackson being in trouble, there's another thread about the documentary.

I should report you for blatant misinformation.

Put away the handbags ladies.

Jerichoholic

What was there to clear up? The guy in that video is a cult like Jackson fan cretin. He will never accept any bad being said about him. Nothing. He's even still dressing up like him in 2019.

That's what I was referring to.

He's the creep behind MJInnocent.com

I'm sure he's a flat earther too.

ToBeFrank123

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Also the thread is about Michael Jackson being in trouble, there's another thread about the documentary.

I should report you for blatant misinformation.

Report me all you like.

But I don't label or name call posters just because they have a different opinion to mine.

People are free to doubt or accept evidence and not be name called which as I said adds nothing to the discussion.

I don't believe personal insults have a place on here.

ToBeFrank123

Jerichoholic wrote: »

What was there to clear up? The guy in that video is a cult like Jackson fan cretin. He will never accept any bad being said about him. Nothing. He's even still dressing up like him in 2019.

That's what I was referring to.

He's the creep behind MJInnocent.com

I'm sure he's a flat earther too.

Anyone who thinks people who questions some if not most of the evidence against Jackson are also flat earthers, anti vaxers, Trump lovers and so on have clearly issues with telling the truth themselves. If they believe that it makes you wonder what else they are prepared to believe or accept without questioning.

ToBeFrank123

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Put away the handbags ladies.

Haha sorry. I should put him on ignore by right.

I just think the discussion should remain civilized and anyone who chooses to question something rather than row in behind the general consensus shouldn't be labelled or insulted. Otherwise this thread also ends up one sided.

hetuzozaho

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Latoya?! you're fvcking kidding right?

Haha I know but in my mind shes no crazier than the Peter Pan lad with the mind of a boy in the body of man sleeping with the kids in Neverland.

hetuzozaho

tylercheribini wrote: »

Again referring to my earlier post, to all the nay-sayers, what is the precise figure of accusers to be reached before they can be believed? What arbitrary number? I am genuinely intrigued.

(Michael's current number of accusers) + 1

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

The man who assaulted me was never convicted. Most of the priests who abused children were never convicted.

If your position is that you refuse to accept any assault that didn't result in a conviction didn't happen, you must be absolutely outraged on behalf of the Catholic Church.

My position is, if someone broke the law they should be punished for it.

As I quite clearly stated in the post you quoted.

Boggles

marklazarcovic wrote: »

It's very easy to call them not credible when they are probably looking for money as compensation,but what else is there for them?

I said this about 30 times on the thread at this stage.

The people they are making the allegations against, very serious allegations, are still alive.

Jackson is dead, he cannot be prosecuted.

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

My position is, if someone broke the law they should be punished for it.

As I quite clearly stated in the post you quoted.

But you also seem to be saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - that you are reluctant to believe victims unless a conviction took place.

Now we know that, for example, far more women and men seek support from the rape crisis centre after an assault than go to the gardai.

They don't report their assaults, often because a fear that they won't be believed, that people will poke holes in their credibility, call them a liar etc.

And if your position is "I only believe victims if the perpetrator was found guilty in court", you're legitimising those fears.

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

But you also seem to be saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - that you are reluctant to believe victims unless a conviction took place.

Now we know that, for example, far more women and men seek support from the rape crisis centre after an assault than go to the gardai.

They don't report their assaults, often because a fear that they won't be believed, that people will poke holes in their credibility, call them a liar etc.

And if your position is "I only believe victims if the perpetrator was found guilty in court", you're legitimising those fears.

What I am clearly saying is if someone broke the law, they should face a penalty for this, the allegations are tested in a court of law sometimes with a Jury depending on severity of the crime.

You know the way all modern Western societies deal with alleged criminals.

Have you a better idea, what should we be doing?

Poll on Twitter?

Scotty #

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Lads you're making a show of yourselves blindly defending this monster....

I think you have this the wrong way round? Jackson was through the court system and cleared of all charges. Therefor those defending him are not doing so "blindly". They have court proceeding and evidence to back up their belief. Then you have people who have watched a documentary showing another persons (new!) version of events, and without any evidence or corroboration, believe it to be true. Which side is blindly believing?

Mr.Wemmick

Okay, after watching many vids and reading all sorts of material, I finally went for it and watched the documentary.

I am shocked by it, because I never realized how devious and manipulative MJ was.. he was some liar. What shocked me is how Wade 11 years lied on camera exactly like MJ lies, the same eye focus and slight facial defiance. Very weird. Has any psychologists even look at the footage, any expert analysis? I thought it very off, if not downright spooky. MJ had him completely under his control - he not only danced like him, he lied like him.

WTF, was with all the locks on the inner doors towards MJ’s bedroom in Neverland. That is so f*cked up, horribly creepy to see them.. like something out of the dark ages.

And Safechuck when he had to sleep downstairs away from MJ for the first time because MJ had a new boy, the loneliness hit him and he cried for his Mum.. and describing how he felt at that age, there was no lie in his voice. He used so few words but the desolation he felt, again very scary. What horrible abuse.

Good on Oprah. That is next on my list to watch.

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

What I am clearly saying is if someone broke the law, they should face a penalty for this, the allegations are tested in a court of law sometimes with a Jury depending on severity of the crime.

You know the way all modern Western societies deal with alleged criminals.

Have you a better idea, what should we be doing?

Poll on Twitter?

You're misunderstanding me - of course I think rapists should face trial and go to prison. I'd like to think all of us here regardless of our other differences of opinion can agree on that.

What I'm asking you to acknowledge is that many rapes of men and women are never reported, and that the fact that they were never reported (and therefore never prosecuted) doesn't make them any less real.

So this goes back to my previous point about creating an environment where it's easier for victims to come forward without fear of ridicule, being accused of being a liar, or intimidation.

Theboinkmaster

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

I am shocked by it, because I never realized how devious and manipulative MJ was.. he was some liar. What shocked me is how Wade 11 years lied on camera exactly like MJ lies, the same eye focus and slight facial defiance. Very weird. Has any psychologists even look at the footage, any expert analysis? I thought it very off, if not downright spooky. MJ had him completely under his control - he not only danced like him, he lied like him.

WTF, was with all the locks on the inner doors towards MJ’s bedroom in Neverland. That is so f*cked up, horribly creepy to see them.. like something out of the dark ages.

And Safechuck when he had to sleep downstairs away from MJ for the first time because MJ had a new boy, the loneliness hit him and he cried for his Mum.. and describing how he felt at that age, there was no lie in his voice. He used so few words but the desolation he felt, again very scary. What horrible abuse.

You state all this as FACT when it is not. There is no corroborating evidence of any of this - just the stories of two proven liars who IMO have no credibility.

Theboinkmaster

KikiLaRue wrote: »

But you also seem to be saying - and correct me if I'm wrong - that you are reluctant to believe victims unless a conviction took place.

I don't believe this is the case at all. I think it comes down to credibility, like it does with witness testifying in a court of law.

Many people (incl myself) do not believe these 2 accusers, not because they have not tried their cases in criminal court, but because we don't find them credible.

- proven liars
- changing stories
- absence of criminal complaint
- seeking employment with MJ estate
- seeking damages of $1.6Bn from MJ estate
- civil case judge not believing their stories and dismissing case
- documentary being salacious, over-long and completely unbalanced

There's a lot more online...for example MJ setting up Wade with his niece and them dating for a significant amount of time....so many inconsistencies in their stories that just don't add up.

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

What I'm asking you to acknowledge is that many rapes of men and women are never reported, and that the fact that they were never reported (and therefore never prosecuted) doesn't make them any less real.

Why are you asking me acknowledge it? Did I ever deny it?

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So this goes back to my previous point about creating an environment where it's easier for victims to come forward without fear of ridicule, being accused of being a liar, or intimidation.

I would never ridicule any genuine victim of any crime.

Flippyfloppy

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You state all this as FACT when it is not. There is no corroborating evidence of any of this - just the stories of two proven liars who IMO have no credibility.

When were they proved liars?

KikiLaRue

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I don't believe this is the case at all. I think it comes down to credibility, like it does with witness testifying in a court of law.

While I understand this point of view, this is used to get rapists off the hook all the time. Basically it puts the victim on trial.

So a barrister defends a rapist by attacking a victim's credibility:

- Why was she dressed like that?
- How much had she drank?
- Why was she even at that party?
- What was she wearing?
- What sort of underwear did she have on?

And by gradually undermining every aspect of the victim's choices, a good lawyer is able to create little bit of doubt in the jury's mind, reasonable doubt.

And the rapist walks free.

We've seen it time and again.

Look up how many people access the Rape Crisis Centre's services every year, compare it to how many people report sexual assault to the Gardai, and compare that to the number of people who are actually convicted.

It's a shockingly small number.

Obviously these are more general points not directly related to the MJ case, but my main point is that no matter who comes forward there will always be ways to attack their credibility.

Why aren't we talking more about MJ's credibility? I'd consider it quite low, because I'd consider any adult man who sleeps with children to have low credibility when it comes to accusations of molestation.

Mr.Wemmick

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You state all this as FACT when it is not. There is no corroborating evidence of any of this - just the stories of two proven liars who IMO have no credibility.

Your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Evidence a plenty of MJ on camera, of him with boys, his lies, his face, the locks on his door, sleeping with boys, description of mark on his penis, his bedside reading material.. Ad f*cking Nauseam.

Fantasy MJ land is alive and well.. waiting for a little choo choo train to fly through this thread any day now.

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

Why are you asking me acknowledge it? Did I ever deny it?



I would never ridicule any genuine victim of any crime.

Of course you wouldn't, because you're a decent human (I assume). What's in question here is who you consider a "genuine victim", and how much evidence you need to believe someone. If your bar is a criminal conviction, then you're ignoring huge numbers of people who for whatever reason did not feel strong enough to pursue that route.

Boggles

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't, because you're a decent human (I assume). What's in question here is who you consider a "genuine victim", and how much evidence you need to believe someone. If your bar is a criminal conviction, then you're ignoring huge numbers of people who for whatever reason did not feel strong enough to pursue that route.

It's not my bar, it's Western Societies Bar. Have you another bar?

It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but for God sake it is 1 million times better than trial by Netflix or HBO. Surely you agree with that?

Scotty #

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

When were they proved liars?

For years and years they said no abuse took place. Now they say it did. Both versions can't be true.

Theboinkmaster

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

When were they proved liars?

Ah jaysus, read it up - this thread is going round in circles.

Example - Wade Robson testified under oath MJ never touched him.

Scotty #

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Ah jaysus, read it up - this thread is going round in circles.

Example - Wade Robson testified under oath MJ never touched him.

Wade Robson gave interviews right up until a year or two ago that MJ never touched him! Long into adulthood and years after MJ's death.

Theboinkmaster

KikiLaRue wrote: »

While I understand this point of view, this is used to get rapists off the hook all the time. Basically it puts the victim on trial.

So a barrister defends a rapist by attacking a victim's credibility:

- Why was she dressed like that?
- How much had she drank?
- Why was she even at that party?
- What was she wearing?
- What sort of underwear did she have on?

And by gradually undermining every aspect of the victim's choices, a good lawyer is able to create little bit of doubt in the jury's mind, reasonable doubt.

And the rapist walks free.

We've seen it time and again.

I understand all that but it's the world we live in - otherwise anyone could accuse anyone of sexual assault and they would immediately go to jail?

If there's no evidence all there is is an accuser's credibility - that's all we have. Otherwise it is better to let a guilty person go rather than put an innocent person in jail.

Lollipops23

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Evidence a plenty of MJ on camera, of him with boys, his lies, his face, the locks on his door, sleeping with boys, description of mark on his penis, his bedside reading material.. Ad f*cking Nauseam.

I missed this, what was it?

KikiLaRue

Boggles wrote: »

It's not my bar, it's Western Societies Bar. Have you another bar?

It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but for God sake it is 1 million times better than trial by Netflix or HBO. Surely you agree with that?

Absolutely, I think particularly in rape trials (and perhaps in others) that the principal of "presumption of innocence" should be replaced with "a presumption of fairness" i.e. that both parties have rights, the defendant has the right to a fair trial and the prosecution has a right to seek justice within the confines of the law.

Here's why: In a rape trial if you presume the defendant is innocent, you must logically presume the accuser is lying. That's a bad place to start. I think at the beginning of the trial we shouldn't be presuming anything about anyone, but we should commit to vindicating the rights of all those involved.

So we don't say, "we're going to presume you're innocent" because we have nothing to base that assumption on. Instead we say "you are entitled to a fair trial, and we will vindicate that right".

Theboinkmaster

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Your opinion and you're welcome to it.

Evidence a plenty of MJ on camera, of him with boys, his lies, his face, the locks on his door, sleeping with boys, description of mark on his penis, his bedside reading material.. Ad f*cking Nauseam.

Sorry what evidence exactly that he raped boys?!

Being seen on camera with boys?
His lies?! what lies exactly?

His face?! So if he had plastic surgery he raped boys WTF?

The description of his penis was wrong which is why he was never prosecuted.

His bedside reading material, what exactly is this?! Nothing like this was found.

You need to get your facts straight and put down The Sun.

KikiLaRue

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I understand all that but it's the world we live in - otherwise anyone could accuse anyone of sexual assault and they would immediately go to jail?

If there's no evidence all there is is an accuser's credibility - that's all we have. Otherwise it is better to let a guilty person go rather than put an innocent person in jail.

Those are not the only two options. We can reform the justice system as I outlined in my post above, and in many other ways.

It's not that black and white.

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You state all this as FACT when it is not. There is no corroborating evidence of any of this - just the stories of two proven liars who IMO have no credibility.

Well there's one thing that's been corroborated now. A news report from years ago showing Michael wearing a disguise, shopping for wedding rings with Safechuck. Just like he said.

That's aside from the photographic evidence that these boys spent a lot of time with michael, and the admissions from Jackson himself that he shared a bed with children. All that was never in question was it

Theboinkmaster

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Those are not the only two options. We can reform the justice system as I outlined in my post above, and in many other ways.

It's not that black and white.

Yes they are and have been foundations for most societies for hundreds of years.

That fundamental principle cannot be changed, but yes you can amend the justice system to help true victims get justice I agree.

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Well there's one thing that's been corroborated now. A news report from years ago showing Michael wearing a disguise, shopping for wedding rings with Safechuck. Just like he said.

I'm not so sure about that, link please?

Also I'm not saying 100% of what they said are lies, I'm sure there are some truths within the 4 hour documentary

Jerichoholic

McCauly Culkin confirmed in court that MJ had an alarm system in place in case anyone was coming near his bedroom.

A 35 year old man insisted on sleeping with 7 year old boys alone in his bed.

Plenty of underage nude boys images were found in his estate.

Do you not even think that MAYBE he was doing something wrong or does it not matter because of the court cases? Do those facts not matter at all?

Flippyfloppy

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Ah jaysus, read it up - this thread is going round in circles.

Example - Wade Robson testified under oath MJ never touched him.

Admitting to the world you were abused would be very difficult.

You can hardly condemn him for that.

Also, if you accept he lied under oath then you accept that the opposite did in fact happen.

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Sorry what evidence exactly that he raped boys?!

Being seen on camera with boys?
His lies?! what lies exactly?

His face?! So if he had plastic surgery he raped boys WTF?

The description of his penis was wrong which is why he was never prosecuted.

His bedside reading material, what exactly is this?! Nothing like this was found.

You need to get your facts straight and put down The Sun.

Once again, Jordy Chandler accurately described his penis. Thats why they paid him off. No matter how many times I post this, none of the MJ defenders address it.

One more try.

One of Jackson's lawyers said afterwards

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of “If we don’t get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson”[1]

The lead investigator said

Dworin: “We had served a search warrant to photograph Michael Jackson. Those photographs corroborated the description that the boy gave us regarding Michael Jackson’s genitals.”

Mankiewicz: “The boy was able to describe discolorations of Jackson’s skin?”

Dworin: “Yes.”

Mankiewicz: “On his genitals, accurately.”

Dworin: “Very much so.”

Scotty #

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Plenty of underage nude boys images were found in his estate.

I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a link? I'd rather not put it into Google.

Theboinkmaster

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Once again, Jordy Chandler accurately described his penis. Thats why they paid him off. No matter how many times I post this, none of the MJ defenders address it.

This is the same Jordy Chandler that later wrote an open letter admitting it was all a lie and that MJ hadn't touched him?

The same Jordy Chandler whose father also admitted it was all false accusations before killing himself?

Theboinkmaster

Scotty # wrote: »

I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a link? I'd rather not put it into Google.

There's a good thread on the TV forum that has this info.

Jackson had a library of 1m+ books, which included art books which included some of these images - books available still on Amazon.

They were not pornographic.

Which is why he was so easily acquitted in the 2005 trial.

Theboinkmaster

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Also, if you accept he lied under oath then you accept that the opposite did in fact happen.

No I don't accept that at all - he has told 2 different opposing stories therefore he is a proven liar.

That is fact.

Jerichoholic

Scotty # wrote: »

I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a link? I'd rather not put it into Google.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michael-jackson-photos-naked-children-pornography-neverland-ranch-police-records-leak-abuse-a7094876.html

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that, link please?

Also I'm not saying 100% of what they said are lies, I'm sure there are some truths within the 4 hour documentary

I already posted it but here it is again, a longer version. I think the one I posted yesterday mentions it being a wedding ring he was looking at and speculated it was for Cheryl crow haha.

https://youtu.be/l3DyN8Jvnz4

fryup

Scotty # wrote: »

Wade Robson gave interviews right up until a year or two ago that MJ never touched him! Long into adulthood and years after MJ's death.

he even lied to his therapist and even Oprah couldn't get her head around that :cool:

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

This is the same Jordy Chandler that later wrote an open letter admitting it was all a lie and that MJ hadn't touched him?

The same Jordy Chandler whose father also admitted it was all false accusations before killing himself?

Yeah no, none of that happened. Its been debunked for years now

Call me Al

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I think there were a lot more than 4 accusers against the church :rolleyes:

There were also a lot more abusers to accumulate victims.