Micky Jackson in trouble again

retro:electro

randd1 wrote: »

How the **** can anyone not think this utter freak was a sick paedophile?

This is a man who has the faculties to organise and choreography huge groups of people, write or co-write numerous songs, give interviews occasionally, and get married, yet not have the faculties to know sharing your bed with a child is wrong? Are people nuts.

But he was a “child in a man’s body” :rolleyes:
He was extremely hyper aware to the point his whole house was monitored and rooms alarmed. There wasn’t a thing going on around him that he didn’t have control over. I was never a huge fan of his music but I can appreciate his lyrical talent, and that isn’t born out of a stunted mind. He was extremely shrewd and manipulative and was smarter than leaving a technological trail of child sex abuse images on a computer that can be traced back to him. And not to be crude but it’s not as if he actually needed it, when he was frequently assisted with the real thing on what seems to be a nightly basis. I’ve no doubt in my mind that he found pleasure by just being in bed beside boys, I’m sure it didn’t always have to involve touching or penetration. As someone said earlier is it any wonder the signs of grooming are often missed, when the most obvious and elaborate case the world has ever known is still being defended and justified.

professore

retro:electro wrote: »

As someone said earlier is it any wonder the signs of grooming are often missed, when the most obvious and elaborate case the world has ever known is still being defended and justified.

Every time I believe there is a limit on how utterly gullible people are something like this comes along and blows it out of the water. You get the feeling if there was video footage discovered in the morning of him raping a child they would try to explain that away too. Absolutely astonishing. It's easy to see how something like Nazi Germany happened.

Boggles

professore wrote: »

Every time I believe there is a limit on how utterly gullible people are something like this comes along and blows it out of the water. You get the feeling if there was video footage discovered in the morning of him raping a child they would try to explain that away too. Absolutely astonishing. It's easy to see how something like Nazi Germany happened.

Jackson

---

> Nazi's.

Fook me!

So basically the counter point to absolutely no evidence.

Is, 'look at the Freak he must be guilty'.

How very scientific. :rolleyes:

Sleeper12

professore wrote: »

Every time I believe there is a limit on how utterly gullible people are something like this comes along and blows it out of the water. You get the feeling if there was video footage discovered in the morning of him raping a child they would try to explain that away too. Absolutely astonishing. It's easy to see how something like Nazi Germany happened.

Don't you get it? There is zero proof of him doing any wrong. He was cleared in a court of law. The police found nothing they could charge him with when they raided his home. This includes his PCs.


His two accusers have repeatedly stated that he never did anything to them. They swore this in a court of law. They have since tried to sue his estate for a billion dollars. A BILLION no less. This failed so they sell their tails to a movie maker.



Unfortunately too many people choose to believe to tabloid "stories". I grew up on stories of "Wacko Jacko" sleeping in an oxygen chamber, Bleaching his skin because he wanted to be White.



I don't know if he's guilty or not. No one here does. But reading this thread every little piece of "proof" posted has successfully been discredited by facts. Posters were happy to post fake stories about child porn & many other things. The sad part is these posters while looking for this fake stuff obviously saw the genuine facts but deliberately posted made up internet lies just to win an argument

Venom

professore

Boggles wrote: »

Jackson

---

> Nazi's.

Fook me!

So basically the counter point to absolutely no evidence.

Is, 'look at the Freak he must be guilty'.

How very scientific. :rolleyes:

If you need scientific proof before you remove kids from dangerous looking weirdos then you are going to get them in a lot of problems. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

I have no idea, I could speculate if you want.

But the more pertinent question is why were they not entered into evidence?

What do you think?

also if you could provide a link for this please.

..

Leroy Thomas, one of the fired “Hayvenhurst Five” security guards, was interviewed by Diane Dimond for Hard Copy on November 23, 1993 following that raid on the Jackson family home. According to Thomas, who worked for the Jacksons from 1987 to 1993, Jackson called him and directed him to retrieve and then destroy a picture of nude young boy that was hidden in his locked bathroom. Thomas described the photo as being a “side view of a totally naked prepubescent blond-haired boy with both his genitals and buttocks showing.”

Thomas said he was instructed by Jackson to destroy the photo, but as it was a Polaroid all he could do was “rip the back off of the picture.”

Sleeper12

professore wrote: »

If you need scientific proof before you remove kids from dangerous looking weirdos then you are going to get them in a lot of problems. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's probably a duck.

You don't need proof to protect kids "just in case". However You should have at least a tiny bit of proof before you label someone a pedophile imo

professore

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Don't you get it? There is zero proof of him doing any wrong. He was cleared in a court of law. The police found nothing they could charge him with when they raided his home. This includes his PCs.

This isn't a court of law.

On the balance of probabilities the man, if you could call him that, was a rampant paedophile. He clearly could have had as much sex or relationships with adult men or women that he wanted yet he slept with young boys instead. Come on man ... wake up!

Theboinkmaster

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Still no one has answered the question of whether they'd let their son sleep in the same bed as a grown man.

No, but what's your point?

Grown man sleeps in same bed as child = 100% automatically a rapist?

professore

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You don't need proof to protect kids "just in case". However You should have at least a tiny bit of proof before you label someone a pedophile imo

If you behave the way he did around kids then you shouldn't be surprised if people label you a paedophile.

ceadaoin.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Don't you get it? There is zero proof of him doing any wrong. He was cleared in a court of law. The police found nothing they could charge him with when they raided his home. This includes his PCs.


His two accusers have repeatedly stated that he never did anything to them. They swore this in a court of law. They have since tried to sue his estate for a billion dollars. A BILLION no less. This failed so they sell their tails to a movie maker.



Unfortunately too many people choose to believe to tabloid "stories". I grew up on stories of "Wacko Jacko" sleeping in an oxygen chamber, Bleaching his skin because he wanted to be White.



I don't know if he's guilty or not. No one here does. But reading this thread every little piece of "proof" posted has successfully been discredited by facts. Posters were happy to post fake stories about child porn & many other things. The sad part is these posters while looking for this fake stuff obviously saw the genuine facts but deliberately posted made up internet lies just to win an argument

No one has claimed "child porn" was found? We have linked to court papers as evidence as to what was found. I have linked to descriptions of the books and that they are considered "child erotica" yet aren't technically illegal. I didn't quote the descriptions of some of the photos in one of the books because frankly they are graphic and disturbing, despite technically being legal.

Yeah it was adult porn but it was all over the place and easy accessible to the children who spent time with Jackson and ties in with what they claimed about being shown it. That's not normal or right and is a recognised grooming technique.


None of this has been disproven by "facts" btw

fryup

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

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

do i think he knowingly abused kids...no

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

professore

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No, but what's your point?

Grown man sleeps in same bed as child = 100% automatically a rapist?

Once off because there is no space ... of course not. Inviting those kids round to your house and having them live with you ... absolutely.

What would you think if I as a middle aged man was inviting young girls to my house and getting them to sleep in my bed?

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote: »

..

Leroy Thomas, one of the fired “Hayvenhurst Five” security guards, was interviewed by Diane Dimond for Hard Copy on November 23, 1993 following that raid on the Jackson family home. According to Thomas, who worked for the Jacksons from 1987 to 1993, Jackson called him and directed him to retrieve and then destroy a picture of nude young boy that was hidden in his locked bathroom. Thomas described the photo as being a “side view of a totally naked prepubescent blond-haired boy with both his genitals and buttocks showing.”

Thomas said he was instructed by Jackson to destroy the photo, but as it was a Polaroid all he could do was “rip the back off of the picture.”

Have you any idea how ridiculous the above story is?
When the police raid your home you don't get to wander around the property nor can you direct staff to leave the room.


Do you honestly not think that the police might have come across people trying to destroy evidence as a property is being raided?



Come on. You can do better than that

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No, but what's your point?

Grown man sleeps in same bed as child = 100% automatically a rapist?

Grown man who sleeps in the same bed as only pre pubescent boys who are replaced when they get too old. Who has displayed in plain sight signs of grooming. Who prefers to sleep with these boys over his own wife. Who has been shown in pictures to be uncomfortably tactile and close to these boys. Whose private quarters where he would hang out with these boys are full of porn magazines. Who possessed many images of naked boys in naturist magazines and "art books". Who has been accused by several boys of abuse. Who has paid out millions in settlements.

Based on all that, yes he is pretty much 100% likely to be a rapist. No one innocent could inadvertently do all those things that make them look like a child abuser and not listen to advice to stop it.

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No one has claimed "child porn" was found? We have linked to court papers as evidence as to what was found. I have linked to descriptions of the books and that they are considered "child erotica" yet aren't technically illegal. I didn't quote the descriptions of some of the photos in one of the books because frankly they are graphic and disturbing, despite technically being legal.

Yeah it was adult porn but it was all over the place and easy accessible to the children who spent time with Jackson and ties in with what they claimed about being shown it. That's not normal or right and is a recognised grooming technique.


None of this has been disproven by "facts" btw

Yes they did. Plenty have stated that child porn was found

I have linked to descriptions of the books and that they are considered "child erotica"

How hard did you look to find this description? This is a classic example of someone ignoring the truth & looking for made up news to prove a point.





They are actually photography books. This is a fact. If you were to find them in a book store they would NOT be in the erotica section. They would be in the photography section.

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Grown man who sleeps in the same bed as only pre pubescent boys who are replaced when they get too old. Who has displayed in plain sight signs of grooming. Who prefers to sleep with these boys over his own wife. Who has been shown in pictures to be uncomfortably tactile and close to these boys. Whose private quarters where he would hang out with these boys are full of porn magazines. Who possessed many images of naked boys in naturist magazines and "art books". Who has been accused by several boys of abuse. Who has paid out millions in settlements.

Based on all that, yes he is pretty much 100% likely to be a rapist. No one innocent could inadvertently do all those things that make them look like a child abuser and not listen to advice to stop it.

Proof???
Anything at all???


Didn't think so

ceadaoin.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Have you any idea how ridiculous the above story is?
When the police raid your home you don't get to wander around the property nor can you direct staff to leave the room.


Do you honestly not think that the police might have come across people trying to destroy evidence as a property is being raided?



Come on. You can do better than that

He doesnt say anything about this happening during the search? He seems to indicate this happened prior and as he was unsuccessful in destroying the photo, it was later found.

This interview took place in 1993, the court documents describing the photos were submitted in 2005. What he describes seems to closely match what is described in the court documents.

There is no reason that the prosecution would attempt to admit evidence that doesn't exist is there?

professore

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Three books, containing ‘photographs of nude and partially clothed children’. The investigator noted that the books contained images of partially clothed or naked children, as well as images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top. This technique may be used to sexualize and lower the inhibitions of a victim, according to the report.

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls, some nude.

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

Photograph: Noted in the document as ‘believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.’

Photograph: young boy holding an umbrella, with bikini bottoms partially pulled down.

Evidence Item #366: Several books, containing images of nude men and children.

Nude images of a nude male couple, another contained nude images of men from the 1800s. Photos of teenage males nude, images of adults with childrens’ faces morphed on top, some nude photos of children

Guilty as HELL.

blade1

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Poor Blanket.

Why,did he drop him?

Sleeper12

ceadaoin. wrote: »

He doesnt say anything about this happening during the search? He seems to indicate this happened prior and as he was unsuccessful in destroying the photo, it was later found.

There is no reason that the prosecution would attempt to admit evidence that doesn't exist is there?

OK. So the police rang ahead to make an appointment so they could raid the house? Giving them a chance to destroy evidence?
Have you any idea haw ridiculous that sounds? Or are you suggesting that Jackson on a whim decided to destroy his porn collection? Asking a hired hand to search & destroy child porn? Honestly? The said hired hand has admitted to destroying evidence? If the police believed that they could charge him based on his own statement.



You chose to believe some crazy stuff that makes absolutely no sense at all

ceadaoin.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Yes they did. Plenty have stated that child porn was found





How hard did you look to find this description? This is a classic example of someone ignoring the truth & looking for made up news to prove a point.





They are actually photography books. This is a fact. If you were to find them in a book store they would NOT be in the erotica section. They would be in the photography section.

Just a coincidence that this book of naked photos of boys, found in Jackson's bedroom, was edited by paedophiles. Also a coincidence that some of photos were taken by paedophiles. So its an even bigger coincidence that this book,made by paedophiles, was owned by someone who just happened to enjoy sharing a bed with pre pubescent boys.

How unfortunate of Jackson to be the victim of so many coincidences that make him look exactly like a child abuser.

The book is edited by Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson.

Georges St. Martin is the pseudonym of Martin Swithinbank. You may not have heard of Martin Swithinbank, because he has also been a major contributor to the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) Bulletin. He was deported to England after completing a 7 1/2-to-15-year sentence for sodomizing young boys on Long Island. He was released Dec. 19, 1992, after spending more than 10 years in prison


Ronald C. Nelson is the pseudonym of Ronald Drew, a New York teacher who was arrested and indicted for selling obscene photographs depicting children involved in various forms of deviant sexual conduct and intercourse (see here).

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

His two accusers have repeatedly stated that he never did anything to them. They swore this in a court of law.

Robson says himself it wasn’t until he attended therapy in 2012 when he felt comfortable with the truth. Do you even know what grooming is? It’s effectively brainwashing a child. It could take years upon years for a child to even come to terms with what happened to them, never mind acknowledge it so publicly to the world and admit you’ve been molested by the most famous man on the planet. Now double the shame and embarrassment you would feel if you were a heterosexual male and how double that again knowing people are so disbelieving of you because you happened to be from a ****ty family. Look at R Kelly ffs. How many of his victims are still insisting it’s a he’s not abusing them when to the world and its mother it’s clear he has brainwashed them. Will you call them liars too when they finally get the strength to leave and realise they were oppressed?
It all relates back to the function and the power of the grooming process and how you don’t even think you’ve been abused when indeed you have. They trusted this man. They thought they meant something to him and believed he wouldn’t harm them.
They have every right to sue his estate. Why shouldn’t they? He ruined their childhoods for the benefit of his sexual pleasure. He made them feel special and then lost interest when they reached puberty.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Posters were happy to post fake stories about child porn & many other things. The sad part is these posters while looking for this fake stuff obviously saw the genuine facts but deliberately posted made up internet lies just to win an argument

He had books which consisted of images of naked children, that much is a fact. Just because it didn’t fall under the legal threshold for porn doesn’t mean it didn’t have a purpose. Psychologists agree that the very books he possessed are consistent with those used in child grooming. So precious to him they were he had them locked away in a special cabinet.
From NSPCC website:

Predators have been known to show children pictures of other children without their clothing in order to make it appear “normal” and “natural.” Some even take the child swimming naked together in an effort to play to the child’s natural curiosity
During the sexual stage, predators ask questions about the child’s sexuality. They will ask things like, “Are you a virgin?” or will talk about masturbation. Some pedophiles talk in great depth about sexual activities with the child to desensitize them to the language and content. They do this to prepare the child for actual physical interaction. They introduce casual contact like hand holding and knee sitting as normal behaviours to get the child used to contact.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

But reading this thread every little piece of "proof" posted has successfully been discredited by facts.

Maybe in your mind it has been, the reality is a lot different. Nothing has been produced on this thread that has even wobbled my belief that he’s anything other than a predator.

It just sets a dangerous precedent when you go down the road of dismissing people as liars because for whatever reason, they weren’t capable enough to admit for years that they had been abused. Especially so when these people were CHILDREN when the abuse happened.

I think Robson comes across as sincere here:
http://m.tmz.com/videos/0_b0ydefzd/

But it’s clear there are two camps here and there always will be. After all, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Theboinkmaster

professore wrote: »

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Three books, containing ‘photographs of nude and partially clothed children’. The investigator noted that the books contained images of partially clothed or naked children, as well as images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top. This technique may be used to sexualize and lower the inhibitions of a victim, according to the report.

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls, some nude.

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

Photograph: Noted in the document as ‘believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.’

Photograph: young boy holding an umbrella, with bikini bottoms partially pulled down.

Evidence Item #366: Several books, containing images of nude men and children.

Nude images of a nude male couple, another contained nude images of men from the 1800s. Photos of teenage males nude, images of adults with childrens’ faces morphed on top, some nude photos of children

Guilty as HELL.

If you are stating that police found paedophile material then why:

- was it not admitted in evidence?
- how was he acquitted in his trial?

My understanding was they only found straight over 18s porn?

If police found paedophile material in Michael Jackson's home then yes I would agree that would be damming evidence against him, I'm just not sure if this actually happened?

Boggles

So a security guard working on TV admitted trying to destroying evidence during or just before an FBI raid?

How many years in prison did he get?

Did he testify in the 2005 trial?

Just so we are clear, the Polaroids didn't exist.

ceadaoin.

There are so many photos of Jackson with various kids on his lap, arms around each other, holding hands, draped over him, or touching in some way that it's truly disturbing

Potential-Monke

It's gas. People accuse Kevin Spacey and others of being rapists and everyone jumps on the bandwagon and accuses them of such, without waiting for the facts.

People accuse Michael Jackson of being a paedophile and the majority defend him. Gotta love that everyone is treated equally.

Theboinkmaster

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It's gas. People accuse Kevin Spacey and others of being rapists and everyone jumps on the bandwagon and accuses them of such, without waiting for the facts.

People accuse Michael Jackson of being a paedophile and the majority defend him. Gotta love that everyone is treated equally.

I agree - trial by social media is very unfair and dangerous.

ceadaoin.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

If you are stating that police found paedophile material then why:

- was it not admitted in evidence?
- how was he acquitted in his trial?

My understanding was they only found straight over 18s porn?

If police found paedophile material in Michael Jackson's home then yes I would agree that would be damming evidence against him, I'm just not sure if this actually happened?

Ffs it's right there in the evidence documents. It's not made up. Images of naked children in art books and naturist magazines. Literally no one here has said that images of child abuse were found. Just images that skirt the line of legality and appropriateness, given the allegations

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

So a security guard working on TV admitted trying to destroying evidence during or just before an FBI raid?

How many years in prison did he get?

Did he testify in the 2005 trial?

Just so we are clear, the Polaroids didn't exist.

Ok well I don't know why they would try to introduce non existent evidence into the court. But even if they don't exist, it doesn't change my mind, all the other stuff leads me to the same conclusion.

professore

What sexually well adjusted male has volumes of books of naked children, some adults with "morphed children's heads" in their book collection?

If this is the opposite of toxic masculinity, then give me toxic masculinity every day over this perversion.

I never understood how sexual abusers got away with it. I do now. Clearly there are armies of losers ready to defend them.

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

But even if they don't exist, it doesn't change my mind

I thought the Polaroids was one of main reasons you thought he was guilty of something.

retro:electro

professore wrote: »

What sexually well adjusted male has volumes of books of naked children, some adults with "morphed children's heads" in their book collection?
.

I would LOVE if one of his defenders could answer this.

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

I thought the Polaroids was one of main reasons you thought he was guilty of something.

Where did I say that? I've posted several times now all the things that lead me to that conclusion. Here is the most recent

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Grown man who sleeps in the same bed as only pre pubescent boys who are replaced when they get too old. Who has displayed in plain sight signs of grooming. Who prefers to sleep with these boys over his own wife. Who has been shown in pictures to be uncomfortably tactile and close to these boys. Whose private quarters where he would hang out with these boys are full of porn magazines. Who possessed many images of naked boys in naturist magazines and "art books". Who has been accused by several boys of abuse. Who has paid out millions in settlements.

Based on all that, yes he is pretty much 100% likely to be a rapist. No one innocent could inadvertently do all those things that make them look like a child abuser and not listen to advice to stop it.

Notice how I don't even mention the Polaroids there. I was just challenging the claim that they don't exist. I think they do/did and can be added to the dodgy things pointing to abuse list. If they don't exist there is still a hell of a lot of dodgy things pointing to abuse.

ceadaoin.

retro:electro wrote: »

I would LOVE if one of his defenders could answer this.

Or if they could even address the books beyond them being "legal art books". Like the contents and people who contributed to it being known paedophiles and nambla members

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Where did I say that?
.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Each one thing on it's own doesn't prove he was a paedophile. Not right or strange, yes. But all of it together? The intense "friendships" which ended once the boys hit puberty only to be replaced by another that was already lined up, the bed sharing, the tactileness with these boys in full view of everyone to the point it made people uncomfortable, the porn magazines (which by the way if he didn't show them to the boys then why were they there within easy access as the boys claimed), the naked Polaroid of one these kids, the books containing explicit photos of boys that were made by and marketed to paedophiles as a legal way to own images, the alarms on his bedroom, the accusations, the payouts.

So the logical conclusion would be that considering these Polaroids don't exist you are a little less sure?

Correct?

The only reason you or anyone else think he is a child rapist is because he shared his bed with young boys, correct?

The rest is just a collection of nonsense, in fact most of it is fabricated.

Be honest.

Irish Guitarist

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No, but what's your point?

Grown man sleeps in same bed as child = 100% automatically a rapist?

You seriously have to ask what my point is?

A grown man sleeping in the same bed as a child doesn't automatically make him a rapist but you don't even think it's suspicious enough that you wouldn't stop it? You'd be sure enough that a grown man who wanted to sleep with your son wasn't a rapist that you'd just tell the lad to hop into bed with the nice man?

ceadaoin.

Boggles wrote: »

So the logical conclusion would be that considering these Polaroids don't exist you are a little less sure?

Correct?

The only reason you or anyone else think he is a child rapist is because he shared his bed with young boys, correct?

The rest is just a collection of nonsense, in fact most of it is fabricated.

Be honest.

Why would that be the logical conclusion? I'm still as sure as I was. There is a lot more than the Polaroids which I do think exist/ed. It's not fabricated, the friendships cooled off once the kids got older, there are tons of photos of Jackson and various kids holding hands, sitting on his lap, arms around each other, posing more like a couple would etc, it's creepy. Porn accessible to children (and alcohol and drugs). Naked pictures of children in the form of naturist magazines and art books. It's all in the police files. And of course the bed sharing yes. It's inappropriate and misguided at best. At worst it's an abuser hiding in plain sight.

AND THE FACT THAT SEVERAL BOYS CLAIM THEY WERE ABUSED!! You're happy to paint them all as opportunistic liars, I'm not.

We aren't going to agree so forget it. I can't be bothered. I just hope some of the defenders on here would be more attuned to the signs of grooming and abuse in their own lives if they have children, because Jackson pretty much ticks every box.

8-10

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

You seriously have to ask what my point is?

A grown man sleeping in the same bed as a child doesn't automatically make him a rapist but you don't even think it's suspicious enough that you wouldn't stop it? You'd be sure enough that a grown man who wanted to sleep with your son wasn't a rapist that you'd just tell the lad to hop into bed with the nice man?

Of course you'd stop it. It's very inappropriate behaviour. No reasonable parent would allow it, would you allow your kids to do it?

Boggles

ceadaoin. wrote: »

AND THE FACT THAT SEVERAL BOYS CLAIM THEY WERE ABUSED!! You're happy to paint them all as opportunistic liars, I'm not.

2 Very simple questions.

Why would you go to a civil lawyer ($$$) before a criminal one if you are claiming you were molested?

Do you think he should have been found guilty in 2005?

BBFAN

I'm not really too worked up about this case, the man is dead so I'm sure it no longer matters to him what people think.

I do however think it's very worrying the amount of people who defend actions like having these so called "photography books" and having children not related to you sleeping in your bed?

It makes me wonder as to the motive of such defenders. Why get so worked up to defend someone who was at best a self obsessed arsehole?

fin12

professore wrote: »

This isn't a court of law.

On the balance of probabilities the man, if you could call him that, was a rampant paedophile. He clearly could have had as much sex or relationships with adult men or women that he wanted yet he slept with young boys instead. Come on man ... wake up!

If he was such a rampant paedophile, why didn’t he abuse his own children

He wasn’t interested in sex therefore that’s all he did was sleep.

twill

Boggles wrote: »

The only reason you or anyone else think he is a child rapist is because he shared his bed with young boys, correct?

No, because boys and men have described how he abused them. Jackson's employees described witnessing abuse. Because his behaviour is consistent with that of other paedophiles. Because he used intimidation to threaten the families of the abused boys and others who were keeping his secrets. Because he bankrupted his estate in payoffs to boys he abused and others who knew too much. Because the majority of the witness accounts corroborate each other and are consistent with known facts. Because every single investigator believed him guilty, and they had nothing to gain from the prosecution.


Oh, but he wasn't a paedophile, because he had power, and we must protect powerful people at all costs. Right?

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

If he was such a rampant paedophile, why didn’t he abuse his own children

He wasn’t interested in sex therefore that’s all he did was sleep.

Because paedos don’t abuse every child in sight.
Just like rapists don’t rape every woman in sight.
Weird defence for him tbh.. “he didn’t even abuse his kids so he’s clearly not one”
Not interested in sex? Care to explain his mass collection of pornography?

AllForIt

retro:electro wrote: »

Because paedos don’t abuse every child in sight.
Just like rapists don’t rape every woman in sight.
Weird defence for him tbh.. “he didn’t even abuse his kids so he’s clearly not one”

Not interested in sex? Care to explain his mass collection of pornography?

It was revealed he had adult porn on his computer. So what? You'd think that would be a positive in his defense since it was adult porn but your using it as circumstantial evidence to support your view where in fact it goes against your view.

BBFAN wrote: »

It makes me wonder as to the motive of such defenders. Why get so worked up to defend someone who was at best a self obsessed arsehole?

What on earth is that statement suppose to mean? What do you think is the motive and what do you think the ppl your talking about have to gain?

Your comment about MJ being a self obsessed arsehole is quite telling.

retro:electro

AllForIt wrote: »

It was revealed he had adult porn on his computer. So what? You'd think that would be a positive in his defense since it was adult porn but your using it as circumstantial evidence to support your view where in fact it goes against your view.

No I’m not. I’m using it to refute allegations he was disinterested in sex.

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

Because paedos don’t abuse every child in sight.
Just like rapists don’t rape every woman in sight.
Weird defence for him tbh.. “he didn’t even abuse his kids so he’s clearly not one”
Not interested in sex? Care to explain his mass collection of pornography?

That’s not my defense for saying he wasn’t a paedophile, I’m asking why didn’t he as people claim here he was such a rampant paedophile?

The alleged collection of pornography, Could have belonged to anyone, staff, members of his family.

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

That’s not my defense for saying he wasn’t a paedophile, I’m asking why didn’t he as people claim here he was such a rampant paedophile?

The alleged collection of pornography, Could have belonged to anyone, staff, members of his family.

Oh give over!! Lol. “That money was just resting in my account” :pac:

I’ve never described him as a rampant paedophile. I believe he was more opportunistic and sought out children with vulnerabilities. Plenty of paedophiles have families and children of their own who they never touch. It’s nothing to applaud.

AllForIt

retro:electro wrote: »

No I’m not. I’m using it to refute allegations he was disinterested in sex.

OK, my apologies, I didn't read the preceding posts so I read your post of context. My secondary point still stands though.