• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access.

    By joining you will gain full access to thousands of Videos, Pictures & Much More.

    Membership is absolutely FREE and registration is FAST & SIMPLE so please, Register Today and join one of the friendliest communities on the net!



    You must be at least 18 years old to legally access this forum.
  • Hello Guest,

    Thanks for remaining an active member on GayHeaven. We hope you've enjoyed the forum so far.

    Our records indicate that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks. Why not dismiss this notice & make your next post today by doing one of the following:
    • General Discussion Area - Engage in a conversation with other members.
    • Gay Picture Collections - Share any pictures you may have collected from blogs and other sites. Don't know how to post? Click HERE to visit our easy 3-steps tutorial for picture posting.
    • Show Yourself Off - Brave enough to post your own pictures or videos? Let us see, enjoy & comment on that for you.
    • Gay Clips - Start sharing hot video clips you may have. Don't know how to get started? Click HERE to view our detailed tutorial for video posting.
    As you can see there are a bunch of options mentioned in here and much more available for you to start participating today! Before making your first post, please don't forget to read the Forum Rules.

    Active and contributing members will earn special ranks. Click HERE to view the full list of ranks & privileges given to active members & how you can easily obtain them.

    Please do not flood the forum with "Thank you" posts. Instead, please use the "thanks button"

    We Hope you enjoy the forum & thanks for your efforts!
    The GayHeaven Team.
  • Dear GayHeaven users,

    We are happy to announce that we have successfully upgraded our forum to a new more reliable and overall better platform called XenForo.
    Any feedback is welcome and we hope you get to enjoy this new platform for years and years to come and, as always, happy posting!

    GH Team

MJ -guilty or innocent?

lhardwick69

Junior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
70
Points
48
I say he is innocent--he may been too friendly with kids and people try to make money off it
 

dargelos

Super Vip
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
308
Points
83
No comment from me but his sister La Toya knew him better than anyone, look up what she has to say.
 

haiducii

Super Vip
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
52,625
Reaction score
67,796
Points
167
No comment from me but his sister La Toya knew him better than anyone, look up what she has to say.

Oh yeah, I still remember when LaToya Jackson stuck her neck out back in 1993 and broke away from her family to claim that she was »definitely« sure her brother was a paedophile...
 

gorgik9

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
13,852
Reaction score
12,976
Points
120
In my opinion there's a lot of really bad smell surrounding the recent "Leaving Neverland"-movie in two parts (2 x 120 minutes= 240 minutes in toto) - and the smelly thing in my opinion isn't Michael Jackson's dead body...

Like when Wade Robson and James Safechuck after 4 hours - for fucks sake 4 hours - of telling their "true" story manages to "forget" that MJ:s niece Brandi was dating young Wade for many years when MJ was still alive - at a time when MJ in mr Robson's questionable story was allegedly doing his best to keep Wade away from girls...

Of course the Robson / Safechuck team doesn't want to talk too much about what their actions is really all about - having yet another try in court to get gazillions of dollars from the MJ estate.

And why is La Toya Jackson said to be the one who knew MJ best? Michael was one of the younger in a very large family and had a big bunch of brothers and sisters - so La Toya most probably wasn't the only one knowing Michael very well, but La Toya was the only one to accuse her kid brother of sexual abuse in 1993 at a press conference in Tel Aviv staged by her abusive then husband and entertainment manager Jack Gordon. I just wonder why La Toya ventriloquised by the not very respectable mr Gordon is more trustworthy than all the others of MJ's siblings, and all his nephews and nieces who also knew him pretty well - all of them protesting against all the accusations of MJ being a sexual abuser.

What is undeniably true is that MJ is dead, and has been dead for 10 years. He just can't defend himself - isn't that obvious?

He was tried for sexual child abuse in 2005 and aquitted on every fuckin' damn single point.

But getting the "not guilty"-verdict isn't good enough when mr Robson thinks he's entitled to billions of $$$ - his case is stinking and stinking weak.

Michael Jackson R.I.P.
 

topdog

Super Vip
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
585
Points
128
No, getting a "not guilty " verdict isn't enough to prove innocence. Just ask OJ Simpson. It just means that the prosecutor was not able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I remember watching the Martin Bashir documentary in 2003 and being shocked at an intimate moment when 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo after telling Mr. Bashir that Jackson wouldn't hurt anyone, put his head on Jackson's shoulder and stared up at him. My first thought was "that kid's in love with Michael Jackson".

OK, a fan being in love with MJ maybe isn't unusual. But Jackson's response was. He let him do it. He was basking in it. He thought it was the greatest thing in the world and there wasn't a thing wrong with it.

That is not the action of a man who understands children and knows where the boundaries are and what they need from adults. It doesn't prove that there was hanky-panky going on, but it shows Jackson to be someone who's primary concern was about how children made him feel rather than what is best for children. And of course he also said in that interview that even after having to pay $25 million to settle a previous child abuse case out of court, he still slept with boys.

That is reckless. That is a person who thinks that the rules don't apply to him.

So I was not surprised when I found that not long after that Arvizo's parents went the the Santa Barbara police to file charges.

No, the charges didn't stick in court. Most child sex abuse cases are lost because in a he said/she said contest, juries tend to give the adult the benefit of the doubt. It's the reason most Catholic priests escaped prosecution; its the reason the boy scouts have a long list of "do not rehire" accused abusers that were not jailed even though all accusations in the BSA are referred to local police.

Why are people up in arms now about all these sex abuse accusations that followed priests from parish to parish? Because over 90% of the time in a sex assault case the victim is telling the truth. They lose cases because they cannot prove them - but the abuse happened nonetheless. In hindsight we know this. We see the patterns and we know this isn't kids in multiple places in multiple decades making up stories about the same priest. Just because each case couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

So, no - the fact that MJ got off is not an exoneration. It does not clear his character. Rather, the fact that he was (again) accused and that the Santa Barbara Police felt they had a good case (most of the time the police won't press charges if they think they will lose in court) speaks volumes.

If MJ wanted to clear his name after the first accusations he could have done that. He could have steered clear of boys and focused on other community service. He could have stopped taking boys to bed with him! He couldn't do that. That's what I saw then, and that's what I see now.
 

gorgik9

Super Vip
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
13,852
Reaction score
12,976
Points
120
No, getting a "not guilty " verdict isn't enough to prove innocence. Just ask OJ Simpson. It just means that the prosecutor was not able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I remember watching the Martin Bashir documentary in 2003 and being shocked at an intimate moment when 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo after telling Mr. Bashir that Jackson wouldn't hurt anyone, put his head on Jackson's shoulder and stared up at him. My first thought was "that kid's in love with Michael Jackson".

OK, a fan being in love with MJ maybe isn't unusual. But Jackson's response was. He let him do it. He was basking in it. He thought it was the greatest thing in the world and there wasn't a thing wrong with it.

That is not the action of a man who understands children and knows where the boundaries are and what they need from adults. It doesn't prove that there was hanky-panky going on, but it shows Jackson to be someone who's primary concern was about how children made him feel rather than what is best for children. And of course he also said in that interview that even after having to pay $25 million to settle a previous child abuse case out of court, he still slept with boys.

That is reckless. That is a person who thinks that the rules don't apply to him.

So I was not surprised when I found that not long after that Arvizo's parents went the the Santa Barbara police to file charges.

No, the charges didn't stick in court. Most child sex abuse cases are lost because in a he said/she said contest, juries tend to give the adult the benefit of the doubt. It's the reason most Catholic priests escaped prosecution; its the reason the boy scouts have a long list of "do not rehire" accused abusers that were not jailed even though all accusations in the BSA are referred to local police.

Why are people up in arms now about all these sex abuse accusations that followed priests from parish to parish? Because over 90% of the time in a sex assault case the victim is telling the truth. They lose cases because they cannot prove them - but the abuse happened nonetheless. In hindsight we know this. We see the patterns and we know this isn't kids in multiple places in multiple decades making up stories about the same priest. Just because each case couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

So, no - the fact that MJ got off is not an exoneration. It does not clear his character. Rather, the fact that he was (again) accused and that the Santa Barbara Police felt they had a good case (most of the time the police won't press charges if they think they will lose in court) speaks volumes.

If MJ wanted to clear his name after the first accusations he could have done that. He could have steered clear of boys and focused on other community service. He could have stopped taking boys to bed with him! He couldn't do that. That's what I saw then, and that's what I see now.

Well, as far as I can see, after re-reading my own post above, I didn't say that MJ:s 2005 verdict was "enough to prove [his] innocence" - a decent legal system doesn't deal in proving people's innocence. We can all imagine anything about anyone and ask ourselves: "- Could he really be innocent? I don't think so - his behavior is so odd..."

It's still totally true that MJ is dead and has so been for 10 years. Anyone can say just anything about a dead man, resting assured that he will never answer the allegations. Since he can't. Because he's dead.
 

dargelos

Super Vip
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
308
Points
83
I have avoided adding any opinion of my own to this thread because I don't want to increase the danger of it becoming locked.
There is nothing I need to add now because topdog has said what needs to be said and I thank him for that.
 

NeverCD

Banned
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
131
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In my opinion there's a lot of really bad smell surrounding the recent "Leaving Neverland"-movie in two parts (2 x 120 minutes= 240 minutes in toto) - and the smelly thing in my opinion isn't Michael Jackson's dead body...

Like when Wade Robson and James Safechuck after 4 hours - for fucks sake 4 hours - of telling their "true" story manages to "forget" that MJ:s niece Brandi was dating young Wade for many years when MJ was still alive - at a time when MJ in mr Robson's questionable story was allegedly doing his best to keep Wade away from girls...

Of course the Robson / Safechuck team doesn't want to talk too much about what their actions is really all about - having yet another try in court to get gazillions of dollars from the MJ estate.

And why is La Toya Jackson said to be the one who knew MJ best? Michael was one of the younger in a very large family and had a big bunch of brothers and sisters - so La Toya most probably wasn't the only one knowing Michael very well, but La Toya was the only one to accuse her kid brother of sexual abuse in 1993 at a press conference in Tel Aviv staged by her abusive then husband and entertainment manager Jack Gordon. I just wonder why La Toya ventriloquised by the not very respectable mr Gordon is more trustworthy than all the others of MJ's siblings, and all his nephews and nieces who also knew him pretty well - all of them protesting against all the accusations of MJ being a sexual abuser.

What is undeniably true is that MJ is dead, and has been dead for 10 years. He just can't defend himself - isn't that obvious?

He was tried for sexual child abuse in 2005 and aquitted on every fuckin' damn single point.

But getting the "not guilty"-verdict isn't good enough when mr Robson thinks he's entitled to billions of $$$ - his case is stinking and stinking weak.

Michael Jackson R.I.P.

Finally a man with the balls to point to the FACTS. You are not taking either side and I TOTALLY appreciate that. God bless

Biggest fact of all: MJ is dead! But, apparently, the estate isn't. The ultimate temptation for the morally weak.
 

Rigor100

New member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michael Jackson fans sue alleged abuse victims in French court
reuters.com/article/us-people-jackson-france-lawsuit/michael-jackson-fans-sue-alleged-abuse-victims-in-french-court-idUSKCN1TZ156

France honours the dead. They still get their day in court. Let judge and jury decide. Not tabloids, sensationalists and other quick-buck chancers.
 

topdog

Super Vip
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
2,393
Reaction score
585
Points
128
Michael Jackson fans sue alleged abuse victims in French court...

I know nothing about French law, but what gives them the standing to sue? Where they harmed? No. Does the French court have any jurisdiction over the Jackson estate? No. Was the documentary (and the allegedly libelous statements) made in France? No.

So can anyone in France sue anyone anywhere in the world for statements made about any other human in the world - alive or dead?
That is the assumption of this case. I find it hard to believe that this is the way the French Judiciary sees the world.
 

Rigor100

New member
Joined
Jul 4, 2019
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I know nothing about French law, but what gives them the standing to sue? Where they harmed? No. Does the French court have any jurisdiction over the Jackson estate? No. Was the documentary (and the allegedly libelous statements) made in France? No.

So can anyone in France sue anyone anywhere in the world for statements made about any other human in the world - alive or dead?
That is the assumption of this case. I find it hard to believe that this is the way the French Judiciary sees the world.

I gather the aim is a prima facie ruling? Anything is better than rule by sensationalists and quick-lotta-bucks artists.

What alternative do you suggest? No trial at all? We do not live in China my friend, thank God.
 
Last edited:
Top