Michael Jackson Trial Discussion

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Adam_PoE

PVS
they will never get him
and here is why-- any parent who would allow their kid to sleep over
jackson's house is obviously seeking fortune at the expense of their own child.
any parent who would put their child in harms way like this is the scum of the earth, and scummy people are easy to discredit.

shaber
I heard this on the radio several times today. It's not even interesting. Why does national news always receive media blackouts?

Df02
you're ignoring the fact that the kid didnt deny that he showed him 'A' porn mag... just lied about it being that exact one...

and if i was that young and in court, i dont know if i could truthfully answer whether my dad has abused me or not!! - i mean, ffs, its a pretty sensitive issue for a kid... erm

Alpha Centauri
Why does everyone keep making excuses? The little shit lied and got busted. Good.

This isn't a situation where lying is acceptable.

If they never found out he was lying and the man got sent down, he'd have been sent down on lies. The public would have sucked it up like they always do.

This is just despicable.

-AC

BackFire
Yep, he lied.

You know, whatever the case, I'm not going to be surprised by either verdict. If he's innocent then that will have been obvious because of his wealth and the fact that these kids stories aren't consistant and filled with holes.

If he's guilty, then I won't be surprised because he's readily admitted to sleeping in the same bed with children and has gone on record saying he thinks this is okay, which is undeniably fishy and questionable.

Whatever the case, all the shit MJ is going through is his own fault. He shouldn't be having kids over for "sleep overs" and he definately shouldn't be sleeping in the same bed with him, especially after he has been accused of this before.

PVS
but as i pointed out AC, the only parents who would send their kids to molestation ranch are those who would set their kids up.

and before you call that bullshit...answer me this:
would you let your kids stay there?

scumbag parents will never be in short supply, so there will always be cases against jackson, his lawyers will always point out the lies, and the 'little shit' will be sent home crying.

only thing is, the whole time jackson is getting his rocks off on children and getting away with it.

The Tired Hiker
Seriously, any guy who has alarms go off when people approach his bedroom door from the hallway has to be a pediphile. erm

PVS
bet he calls it the 'pull your pants up' alarm

KharmaDog
HE will get off, and no one should be suprised about this.

The kid lying is not a good thing, but I can guarantee you that between his lawyers telling him what to say, his parents telling him what to say, and MJ's lawyers questioning him has probably mind f*cked this kid so bad that he probably ain't sure of the truth himself.

The mother also has a questionable past and is probably lting too.

All that being said, MJ is also lying, so who knows what's gonna happen, exept for tha fact that MJ's money will but this problem away like it did before. The first time cost him 25 million, he got lucky and the second time only cost him 2.5 million. This instance is still to be determined.

Draco69
Michael Jackson is screwed in my opinion. No sane person can look at MJ and all the evidence and honestly say that he's innocent.

Can you imagine MJ in prison? His perm is falling out, his makeup is splotchy, his nose is dangling all over the place. That would be a saaaaad sight. If he goes to prison, I give MJ at least 6 months before his fellow prisoners beat him to death. Prisoners hate pedophiles. At least they're good for somethin.

PVS
nonesense

they would never put him in with the general population. they keep sexual offenders separate. he would be among his own kind

KharmaDog
His own Kind? Are there others like MJ? That's a scarey fricken thought.

The Tired Hiker
Originally posted by PVS
bet he calls it the 'pull your pants up' alarm laughing out loud

BackFire
I dunno, I think that now, after this kids been proven to lie, he probably will get off.

Imaginary
Originally posted by KharmaDog
His own Kind? Are there others like MJ? That's a scarey fricken thought.

eek Agreed.

Adam_PoE

Draco69
Originally posted by PVS
nonesense

they would never put him in with the general population. they keep sexual offenders separate. he would be among his own kind

The whole "seperation" technique rarely if ever works. Nearly 90% of all convicted pedophiles even if seperated eventually meet some sort of untimely end at the hands of the other prisoners. Not to mention the guards aren't really differential to the pedophiles getting their asses beaten down anyway. One good example is the pedophile priest. He was seperated. But he still got killed.

PVS
that would be a result of a plot set by the guards and/or warden. sexual offenders are often kept in an entirely seperate building, walled off from the general population. unless there is a plot (which could very well be) he would not be killed.

Draco69
I'm sure there is going to be a plot. Michael Jackson would get his white/black/white whatever a$$ kicked to high heaven. Unless he goes Thriller like he did in his video.

PVS
no he wont

he will get off

he will go on destroying the lives of children

he will never get caught





so just hope that there is a hell or he will never face justice

Draco69
Have Hope! Justice will prevail! Hopefully anyway.

Adam_PoE
So far, this witness has given one story to the police, another story to a psychologist, and two different stories in court.

He claims his family was held captive at Neverland ranch for nearly a month but admits to leaving and coming back at least three times.

He and his sister cannot get their stories straight and he admits to have lied under oath in two other court cases.

I am not making a statement about Michael Jackson's innocence or guilt, but of the credibility of this boy as a witness.

Alpha Centauri
Let's just bring things down.

The only evidence you have Draco, is that he hangs out with kids. Oh and the one line about letting kids sleep in his bedroom.

Doesn't make the man a paedophile.

The kid was prepared to lie underoath and if the parents KNEW he was lying, would they have stepped up and said "Hey, my son is lying. Michael Jackson didn't do that"? No.

If they're that desperate then they obviously know they've not got enough real evidence on him to send him away.

I laugh at you and you jail beating talk.

-AC

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Let's just bring things down.

The only evidence you have Draco, is that he hangs out with kids. Oh and the one line about letting kids sleep in his bedroom.

Doesn't make the man a paedophile.

The kid was prepared to lie underoath and if the parents KNEW he was lying, would they have stepped up and said "Hey, my son is lying. Michael Jackson didn't do that"? No.

If they're that desperate then they obviously know they've not got enough real evidence on him to send him away.

I laugh at you and you jail beating talk.

-AC

can i interrupt your posturing and request that you answer my question?

Draco69
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Let's just bring things down.

The only evidence you have Draco, is that he hangs out with kids. Oh and the one line about letting kids sleep in his bedroom.

Doesn't make the man a paedophile.

The kid was prepared to lie underoath and if the parents KNEW he was lying, would they have stepped up and said "Hey, my son is lying. Michael Jackson didn't do that"? No.

If they're that desperate then they obviously know they've not got enough real evidence on him to send him away.

I laugh at you and you jail beating talk.

-AC

I admit, I haven't been keeping up with the trial. However the evidence is pretty damning in my opinion. It's really hard to go with the "innocent before proven guilty mantra" with this case. I honestly don't care. I think it would be funny to see Mikey in an orange suit. eek!

Imaginary
It would go SO well with his pasty skin eek!

PVS
well, he would always have 'scared straight' to look forward to.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
can i interrupt your posturing and request that you answer my question?

Sorry, I thought it said "as I pointed out TO AC". Misread.

Would I send my children to stay at his house? If I didn't know him extremely well, for multiple years, no I wouldn't.

Originally posted by Draco69
I admit, I haven't been keeping up with the trial. However the evidence is pretty damning in my opinion. It's really hard to go with the "innocent before proven guilty mantra" with this case.

No it's not, because he is. What evidence? There is none besides the ONE thing he said. Even that is inconclusive and extremely dodgy as far as evidence goes.

Now it's been revealed that they're lying to get him down.

-AC

PVS
but the point im making AC is that its a trap.
a trap where there are 2 victimisers and 1 victim.
in the end, the child gets screwed (literally)

victimiser 1: the molester-MJ

victimiser 2: parents who send their kids to sleep over and be molested, in hopes of winning a settlement.

and

the victim: the child. set up by his own parents to be MJ's toy...for profit. in order to spice up the story, he is told to lie by the people he trusts the most on this planet...mommy and daddy. can you really hate the kid for this?

so when the case is over, the parents are proven to be scummy frauds and sent home empty handed...but does that make MJ innocent? now keep in mind, im not suggesting that he should be found guilty regardless, as that would be a blatent obstruction of justice and would hurt us all.

all im asking is this: isnt it so painfully f**king obvious that he is a peodophile? the man has been charged repeatedly, KNOWS that its socially unacceptable, but continues this behavior, desperately trying to convince the world its all innocent. thats not a statement against the norm, its a compulsion. he HAS to have children sleeping in his bed, or else it would have ceased and there woud be no more media attention.

Sadako of Girth
Well.... Jordy Chandler didn't appear to have lied when he said he knew what the underside of Jackson's lovestick looked like in an upright position and it was proven so after the police had taken photos of the afformentioned bangrod, and it matched description....

This was a big reason that MJ paid out the hush money to the family under contract for them not to talk, and the(Civil) case was dropped.

A Nonce with a clever legal dept and lots of money is STILL just a nonce.
I don't buy that this guy should be allowed near kids, even if just for how he appears to treat his own, let alone the fact that he acts, behaves and like a nonce, he has maintained "relationships" with kids who the second they hit maturity, he then casts them aside and repeatedly demonstrates total lack of control and lack of boundries in situations with kids.... Oh man..... The rest of the evidence from Neverland and the Bashir doc is overwhelming. I'm not going to argue the obvious a moment longer, but Im stunned by people who still say that this guy is being fitted up by the witnesses... This latest technical lapse on the part of the boy, still does not excuse MJ's behavior...

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
the victim: the child. set up by his own parents to be MJ's toy...for profit. in order to spice up the story, he is told to lie by the people he trusts the most on this planet...mommy and daddy. can you really hate the kid for this?

Wasn't the child 14? The one who lied? If so, then yeah, I can. Because he's old enough to know the consequences and severity of the situation. He still lied. I wouldn't say Jackson is a molester, as it hasn't been...you know, proven.

Originally posted by PVS
so when the case is over, the parents are proven to be scummy frauds and sent home empty handed...but does that make MJ innocent? now keep in mind, im not suggesting that he should be found guilty regardless, as that would be a blatent obstruction of justice and would hurt us all.

How would it be? If he didn't do anything, then yeah he's innocent. He's never ever ever going to live this down. Thanks to people labelling him something he may very well not be, too fast. Also without thinking. You are going by the assumption that he did it.

Originally posted by PVS
all im asking is this: isnt it so painfully f**king obvious that he is a peodophile?

Nah. Call me crazy, call me an info whore or what not, but to lay that label on someone, I need to see undeniable evidence.

Originally posted by PVS
the man has been charged repeatedly, KNOWS that its socially unacceptable, but continues this behavior, desperately trying to convince the world its all innocent.

Charged? What's a charge without a conviction and substantial evidence? Socially unacceptable to what? Be a paedophile? Yeah I'm sure he does know that. Socially acceptable to sleep in the same bed as kids? I wouldn't say so. If he never laid a finger on them in a harmful or molesting way, then you are wrong, he isn't. It's not a crime.

Originally posted by PVS
thats not a statement against the norm, its a compulsion. he HAS to have children sleeping in his bed, or else it would have ceased and there woud be no more media attention.

You're basing so much of this on assumption (based on nothing concrete). You are assuming that he's a paedophile, that he craves all this and that he's lying. That's you. You've got no substantial reason to believe all that. You just can't see past the fact that you don't believe the interest and love for children is innocent.

Don't label him with things that you cannot prove. Most of what you just posted is "Well this is what I think and it simply cannot be false."

-AC

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
A Nonce with a clever legal dept and lots of money is STILL just a nonce.
I don't buy that this guy should be allowed near kids, even if just for how he appears to treat his own, let alone the fact that he acts, behaves and like a nonce, he has maintained "relationships" with kids who the second they hit maturity, he then casts them aside and repeatedly demonstrates total lack of control and lack of boundries in situations with kids.... Oh man..... The rest of the evidence from Neverland and the Bashir doc is overwhelming. I'm not going to argue the obvious a moment longer, but Im stunned by people who still say that this guy is being fitted up by the witnesses... This latest technical lapse on the part of the boy, still does not excuse MJ's behavior...

I'll say this about Jordy Chandler and his father (the one who pushed Jordy to accuse Jackson), if someone sexually molested my kid, no amount of millions could silence me. The very fact that they back up when money is introduced, says it all. BANG! You're dead.

Secondly, why shouldn't HE be allowed near kids? If the parents were more responsible the kids wouldn't be near him, if they had a problem. None of what you are saying is relevant in a case of sexual molestation. The Bashir Doc? What of it? The man fabricates more than Gianni Versace.

Who the hell are you to judge MJ's behaviour? It's not affecting you, hurting you, disrespecting you or corrupting you. The very fact that the boy lied is enough to show how badly people want him sent down.

If that lie wasn't picked up, would his parents have stepped in and said "Now wait, our boy is telling a lie there. Jackson didn't do that"? No. Why? Coz they don't give a shit about their kid, hence why this is all going on.

-AC

PVS
oh yes AC, he has a genuine 'love' for children...until they grow pubes

KharmaDog
AC, don't you question that MJ has payed over 27.5 million dollars in hush money regarding his first two charges? And you can not be so naive to not beleive that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I guess you also believe that being as the justice system found O.J. Simpson not guilty that he is in fact not responsible for the deaths of his wife and her friend?

MJ will be found innocent because he has money. That is how the system works.

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'll say this about Jordy Chandler and his father (the one who pushed Jordy to accuse Jackson), if someone sexually molested my kid, no amount of millions could silence me. The very fact that they back up when money is introduced, says it all. BANG! You're dead.

and that makes his father a scumbag. but please explain how it is then deducted that MJ is innocent>?

Alpha Centauri
Thanks Mr. Jackson, for telling us what your love for children entails.

Oh wait, you're not Michael Jackson. Silly me.

You just reduced this to unfounded, unbiased and quite frankly crappy opinion. I think that says it all.

-AC

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by KharmaDog
AC, don't you question that MJ has payed over 27.5 million dollars in hush money regarding his first two charges? And you can not be so naive to not beleive that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

If someone molested your child sexually, could cash shut you up? The answer from any parent should be no. Unless they wanted mone....oh wait.

Originally posted by PVS
and that makes his father a scumbag. but please explain how it is then deducted that MJ is innocent>?

Did I deduce that he was? No. I said that it's obvious that they were after money. The last thing Michael Jackson needs is another case based on wretched, filthy lies. Was paying them off a bad look for him? Yes. Does it prove he is guilty? No.

-AC

KharmaDog
AC, first you say,



then you say



Who are you to say? What does your opinion matter? See it works both ways.

KharmaDog
If someone molested my kid they could not pay me off.

However, I have enough money to provide a good life for my kids. Perhaps MJ isolates these poor children because he knows that the family has limited resources to fight him, and that money can shut them up.

These people live in a different reality than you. And some people take advantage of that. That being said, is it right, no it's not. But like some guy on CNN said, those parents who got 25 million dollars can now afford a life and counselling for their kid, these kids in this court case will get NO money, and their lives will be ruined.

Alpha Centauri
Kharma, when behaviour is general and unharmful to anyone. Such as hanging around with children, who is anyone to judge it? My point still stands.

If someone is using sexual molestation charges as a means to get money from someone, using their kid to get money in a horrid way, then yeah, it's pretty obvious that it's disgusting.

Your "money shut them up" theory is just assumption. Money can shut people up, yes. Reasons for shutting people up with money can differ. Could he have done so coz he was guilty? Yes. Could he have done so just to get ANOTHER case off his back? Yes.

Either way, they obviously didn't care about the charges enough because money was able to silence them. Leads me to believe there was no truth.

-AC

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Either way, they obviously didn't care about the charges enough because money was able to silence them. Leads me to believe there was no truth.

-AC

Once again that is just an assumption on your part.

You asked me if I would accept money if my child was molested. Now I ask you, would you give someone 25 million to go away if you were innocent?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You asked me if I would accept money if my child was molested. Now I ask you, would you give someone 25 million to go away if you were innocent?

On the pay off thing, it's assumption yes. However, the very fact that MONEY was able to send them away, leads me to believe that they couldn't have had that much to prove anyway.

Answer to your question: I wouldn't, no. It was something that DID end up giving him a bad look. However, when you look into it, it's possible that he could still have been innocent.

I'm not saying he was, saying he still could have been.

-AC

Reborn Again
I can see MJ moonwalking out of the courtroom a semi-free man. What I mean by 'semi-free' is, his reputation is eternity tanished, though persumed innocent.

PVS
so then i guess your assumptions should be assumed correct and mine should be 'crap' as you put it?

Alpha Centauri
Not at all.

You're making assumptions come across as definate, I'm not.

Me saying "The fact that money send them away leads me to believe they never had much anyway" and you saying "It's so f*cking obvious he's a paedophile" are two different assumptions.

Reborn is right, regardless, he's ruined. Mainly because of idiots.

-AC

PVS
he should feel lucky that only scumbag parents allow their children to sleep over with hopes of cashing in at the expense of the very soul of their offspring. thats the point i keep trying to make. there are no decent parents who partake in this.

Alpha Centauri
Well that's based on your assumption that he is factually a paedophile. If he never has molested any kids, it wouldn't matter if they were decent or not, because there would be no evidence to prove he did it.

-AC

KharmaDog
I think alot of his choices in life are to blame more than the idiots.

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well that's based on your assumption that he is factually a paedophile. If he never has molested any kids, it wouldn't matter if they were decent or not, because there would be no evidence to prove he did it.

-AC

FACT:
MJ is a well known POSSIBLE molester of children.


all parents who have come forth are ones that have let their
kids stay over KNOWING this. therefore, i think its a safe assumption
that they dont care and are looking to cash in. what parent in their right
mind would take such a chance? to prove a point that MJ might be innocent? especially since they dont really know him?

the point i will try to get through again is that its a legal TRAP.
the parents are scum and MJ is shadey to say the least. there is no
scenario possible where an honest caring parent would allow this, be shocked and appauled at the idea that their kid was molested, and forsake any reward and only care about bringing him to justice.
it wont happen, regardless of whether or not he's guilty. get it???


would you AC, the king of all devil's advocates, take that chance?
you know what the truth in your heart is, so please say it

WindDancer
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Reborn is right, regardless, he's ruined. Mainly because of idiots.

-AC

No, I'm going to disagree with your there AC. MJ isn't ruined and he won't lose popularity at all. Despite being a crappy music channel MTV is one of the biggest supporters of MJ. And his fans will continue to support him during this whole trial. Michael is set for life and the only thing those idiots have done is to prove that....well they just idiots.

Sadako of Girth
Indeed. Besides, AC you once argued that the dictionary definition of a Peodophile was merely someone obsessed with/attracted to kids. Therefore you would have to admit by that that regardless of any of the case specifics, he fits your description in any case...
Sorry mate, but we are not idiots, but however, someone sending thier kids over to sleep in the same bed repeatedly with someone of Jackson's record would be. Just my opinion.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
FACT:
MJ is a well known POSSIBLE molester of children.

would you AC, the king of all devil's advocates, take that chance?
you know what the truth in your heart is, so please say it

Most of what you said has already been said before and never doubted, so I quoted something I wished to reply to.

A) No he's not. He isn't well known for being a molester, or possible molester. He's well known and happens to be under accusations of molestation. Not to be a wording whore, just needed to be clarified.

B) I told you before. Unless I knew ANYONE well enough to trust them with my kids, then no. This still doesn't prove him as guilty. It's a legal trap in the sense of greedy parents. MJ still hasn't been proven to BE anything yet. It's only painfully obvious to you and those who don't bother to look into things. You have seen just as much as I have regarding this case, you have no reason to label him a paedophile.

Originally posted by WindDancer

No, I'm going to disagree with your there AC. MJ isn't ruined and he won't lose popularity at all. Despite being a crappy music channel MTV is one of the biggest supporters of MJ. And his fans will continue to support him during this whole trial. Michael is set for life and the only thing those idiots have done is to prove that....well they just idiots.

You believe that he'll be able to shake this label?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth

Indeed. Besides, AC you once argued that the dictionary definition of a Peodophile was merely someone obsessed with/attracted to kids. Therefore you would have to admit by that that regardless of any of the case specifics, he fits your description in any case...
Sorry mate, but we are not idiots, but however, someone sending thier kids over to sleep in the same bed repeatedly with someone of Jackson's record would be. Just my opinion.

Firstly anyone who labels him such a serious thing as a CHILD MOLESTER with absolutely NO evidence to suggest he is, besides things that aren't relevant, aren't exactly of sane logic.

He fits the dictionary defintion how? I argue the definition of Paedophile. Which is sexual attraction to children. Not obsession. Being that you can't prove he has the former (sexual attraction), you can't label him a paedophile. If you're gonna try and be clever, try and catch me out, don't misquote me. Certainly don't misquote the dictionary.

-AC

alic88
woah didnt find this thread.

Michael Jackson is innocent of these charges brought against him, simple as that

WHY? because the only witness who claims to have seen the alleged molestation has alraedy lied. the sister has also lied. This thing was a scam from the begining.

Michael Jackson did not do himself any favor any favor in his documentary, but by no means can a person be labelled or accused as a child molester by just watching that
Whine all you want people. the fact is that justice will prevail, and mj will be proven innocent in front of the court and all of u who always thought mj was a child molester will be proven wrong. Because there is simply no evidence to support that mj molested the young teenager. GET IT?

alic88
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


B) I told you before. Unless I knew ANYONE well enough to trust them with my kids, then no. This still doesn't prove him as guilty. It's a legal trap in the sense of greedy parents. MJ still hasn't been proven to BE anything yet. It's only painfully obvious to you and those who don't bother to look into things. You have seen just as much as I have regarding this case, you have no reason to label him a paedophile.
Firstly anyone who labels him such a serious thing as a CHILD MOLESTER with absolutely NO evidence to suggest he is, besides things that aren't relevant, aren't exactly of sane logic.


-AC

I AGREE

Alpha Centauri
Alic, those who strongly believe he is a molester won't stop thinking he is even if they proclaim him innocent.

I believe he is. If I was shown undeniable evidence to say he was guilty, then fine. I haven't (and I'm sure I never will) seen any though.

-AC

PVS
the point i was making which you obviously missed is that he will NEVER be proven to be a peadophile even if he IS one. GET IT???

so evidence means NOTHING, that previous kid graphically described MJ's penis. he would have been found guilty if it wasnt for the hush money. its all about the money. you operate under the assumption that justice exists in such a case. it does not. why do you not so much as suspect?


and as far as compulsion for sleeping in bed with children, you know damn well its shadey.

whats funny is you find all your loopholes of logic to deny the blatent truth that something is seriously wrong. the guy obsesses over children and blows them off when they hit puberty. thats not friendship, but a craving and compulsion for children. if you cant take the logical next step then fine.

PVS
the fact that you claim to have NO suspicion tells me that you are either:

-increadibly stupid

-just argueing the far extreme of one side for amusement.

well, i know you're not stupid...so....

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
the point i was making which you obviously missed is that he will NEVER be proven to be a peadophile even if he IS one. GET IT???

Bit of a redundant, no need point. Should this be the case, are you going by this basis if he's proven innocent? "Well he could still be one"? If so, I find that very stupid.

Originally posted by PVS
so evidence means NOTHING, that previous kid graphically described MJ's penis. he would have been found guilty if it wasnt for the hush money. its all about the money. you operate under the assumption that justice exists in such a case. it does not. why do you not so much as suspect?

He described A penis. Unless you noticed, bodies tend to have the same parts.

Why are you assuming he would have been found guilty? You are SO sure that he's a paedophile, based on absolutely nothing. Yet that base is obviously enough for you. Justice does exist, if he isn't convicted because there isn't enough or any evidence besides lies, then that's enough for me. If your whole basis is "Well he could still be a paedophile" then you are just raising an unanswerable issue to protect your theory. Which is rather cowardly. "He can't be proven not to be, therefore he could still be one". If everyone and their mothers (literally) can't prove him to be one because there's no evidence, then why should you believe he is.


Originally posted by PVS
and as far as compulsion for sleeping in bed with children, you know damn well its shadey.

Don't tell me what I know. It's unconventional, it's not "shady". If he's planning to do stuff with them, it's shady. I have no prove he has, to me, it's just been raised that he sleeps in the same bed. Whilst unusual, shady isn't how I'd describe it.

Originally posted by PVS
whats funny is you find all your loopholes of logic to deny the blatent truth that something is seriously wrong. the guy obsesses over children and blows them off when they hit puberty.

Was all of this based on something? Or nothing?

Originally posted by PVS
thats not friendship, but a craving and compulsion for children. if you cant take the logical next step then fine.

You are interpreting it as such though. There's no fact there.

How in God's name is the next logical step to hanging around with kids, molestation? Absolutely ridiculous.

-AC

PVS
ffs AC, so you're saying unless i can come up with a video tape of MJ screwing a child or semen stained clothing, he's totally innocent.

and i bring up evidence of former prosecution, so dont insult me by insinuating im making it up.

alic88
u know i used2think that people might re-think about things they say regarding mj as a CHILD MOLESTER, especially when the trial would be going on and the truth will be unfolded right in front of every1 in the world. i guess they just cant accept the fact that a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, and there is a difference between ACCUSED and CONVICTED. Now when the prosecution's "evidence" is being proved wrong, u r saying OH MJ IS WINNING THIS BECAUSE HE HAS MONEY. hah that is pretty lame. " oo the kid and is family are so traumatized by the experience that they cant tell the facts in court"
B U L L S H I T. when a person has molested a kid, there is undeniable evidence, one way or the other, the evidence that prosecution have is.. OH YA THE BROTHER OF THE ACCUSER SAW THE MOLESTATION. ok fine now the brother lies on court, and the sister also lies saying that she said stuff differently because of different situations. NOW DONT GIVE ME THAT "JUVENILLE" crap, saying that they are so nervous that they cant even tell the truth, GOD DAMN IT first the sister says she told social security the wrong things. now the brother has lied about saying that michael jackson showed them pornographic material. the trial is so pathetic that the ACCUSER himself has come into questioning with only 10 days gone by. now the brother says that he saw michael jackson molest the kid 3 times.. but he told the psychiatrist and in evidence that he saw mj molest two times. the accuser's were just caught on the KIDNAPPING issue, because that is also false. You think i am paranoid, making this stuff up.. these articles will be a nice SPILER for all of u 2c
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149512,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149733,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149404,00.html

if u cant c whats going on from here, u r 2 blind2c the truth, and that is that mj is innocent because the evidence made by prosecution is BOGUS

alic88
Originally posted by PVS
ffs AC, so you're saying unless i can come up with a video tape of MJ screwing a child or semen stained clothing, he's totally innocent.

UNLESS HE IS NOT CONVICTED IN COURT, HE IS INNOCENT. AND IF U CANT GET THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY DESPERATE AND STUPID TO KNOW HOW THE JUSTICE SYSTEM REALLY WORKS

Victor Von Doom
I do love the way people take the liberty of introducing the word obsession, then choose to hang him on their rope.

The man likes children, so what? Last time I checked, that doesn't LOGICALLY lead to sexual relations.

I guess it depends on whose logic.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by alic88
UNLESS HE IS NOT CONVICTED IN COURT, HE IS INNOCENT. AND IF U CANT GET THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY DESPERATE AND STUPID TO KNOW HOW THE JUSTICE SYSTEM REALLY WORKS

You mean unless he IS convicted.

PVS
Originally posted by PVS
so evidence means NOTHING, that previous kid graphically described MJ's penis. he would have been found guilty if it wasnt for the hush money. its all about the money. you operate under the assumption that justice exists in such a case. it does not. why do you not so much as suspect?

and i LOVE how you conveniently overlook this time and time again.
not quite as meticulous in smashing my arguement apart as you would like me to believe?

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
ffs AC, so you're saying unless i can come up with a video tape of MJ screwing a child or semen stained clothing, he's totally innocent.

and i bring up evidence of former prosecution, so dont insult me by insinuating im making it up.

With regards to the first part, you are telling me that if he gets found innocent, he could still be one. Which is an absolutely ridiculous outlook to have.

You said he blows kids off, again, what evidence do you have? Some? Or none?

Unless you can prove he is a paedophile, don't call him one.

-AC

PVS
Originally posted by alic88
UNLESS HE IS NOT CONVICTED IN COURT, HE IS INNOCENT. AND IF U CANT GET THAT YOU ARE SIMPLY DESPERATE AND STUPID TO KNOW HOW THE JUSTICE SYSTEM REALLY WORKS

i am not debating the verdict, if you were even paying attention. i was debating cause for suspicion. pay attention before you rant please

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
and i LOVE how you conveniently overlook this time and time again.
not quite as meticulous in smashing my arguement apart as you would like me to believe?

I dealt with that part. Did you not see my post?

I dodged none of your post.

-AC

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He described A penis. Unless you noticed, bodies tend to have the same parts.

Why are you assuming he would have been found guilty? You are SO sure that he's a paedophile, based on absolutely nothing. -AC

yeah, you gave me a one line presumptuous statement (an i guess its ok for you to presume, just so long as none of your opponents do) and then go on to pigeonhole me. i am argueing for the validity of SUSPICION, which you see none.

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
yeah, you gave me a one line presumptuous statement (an i guess its ok for you to presume, just so long as none of your opponents do) and then go on to pigeonhole me. i am argueing for the validity of SUSPICION, which you see none.

You can assume. I gave you the difference of our assumptions earlier. Yours aren't based on anything.

Suspicious? That the man likes kids?

You said the next logical step from liking children is molesting them, how? Tell me how. Like Vic said, depends on whose logic.

Have you ever abused kids that you've grown to like?

-AC

PVS
AC, you continuously fail to see the flaw in your logic here.

" I gave you the difference of our assumptions earlier. Yours aren't based on anything."

and your assumptions are based on.......

Alpha Centauri
......the fact that there's no evidence to prove he's anything you believe he is.

I'm assuming he's innocent, nothing to prove he isn't.

You're calling him a paedophile, based on what evidence? Some? Or none?

-AC

FeceMan
Have I posted in here yet?

PVS
i say he is worthy of suspicion.
lets argue that, ok?

i would never want our system of law to be based on assumption.
that would be hell

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
i say he is worthy of suspicion.
lets argue that, ok?

Sleeping with kids in his best, as I've stated, is peculiar at WORST. Nothing paedophilic about it.

He says one thing and all of a sudden it's Welcome to Paedogeddon.

Don't understand the rashness of it all. Either way, will reply if you have any more to say. Have to bail now though.

-AC

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by PVS

i would never want our system of law to be based on assumption.
that would be hell

Yet it's fine to assume someone is guilty before, during, and possibly after- innocent verdict notwithstanding- the trial?

PVS
im not in a position to have an effect with that assumption.
if i was a jury member, judge, arresting officer...etc. that would be another matter. and as i stated before, i say its cause for

watch me now victor:

SUSPICION

kthx

Victor Von Doom
Well clearly, or there wouldn't be a trial.

The moment the defendant is regarded as guilty before trial is a terrible day for justice. Anyone can make an accusation.

alic88
Originally posted by PVS
i say he is worthy of suspicion.
lets argue that, ok?

i would never want our system of law to be based on assumption.
that would be hell

yes, ok fine, he was worthy of suspicion when the documentary was aired... but then the CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY did and investigation JUST AFTER THE BASHIR DOCUMENTARY and concluded that CHARGES WERE NOT FOUND.. there goes ur suspicion

http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html
this link will help u

alic88
^ u cant deny this, this was done after the bashir documentary by CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY. they interviewed the kid( not accuser then), the mother the whole family. and they said there was nothing 2b found. so what suspicion was left from that documentary eh?

PVS
'The page cannot be displayed'

alic88
oh come i click on it it works.. ok i'll just copy paste it4u

DECEMBER 9--A confidential investigation by Los Angeles police and child welfare officials concluded earlier this year that allegations Michael Jackson sexually abused a cancer-stricken boy were "unfounded," according to an internal government memo obtained by The Smoking Gun.

The probe's findings were based, in large part, on interviews with the alleged victim, his two siblings, and the boy's mother. According to the memo, when the child was questioned in February by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.'s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), he "denied any form of sexual abuse" by Jackson and said that he never "slept in the same bed as the entertainer." While not specifically named in the DCFS memo, the 45-year-old Jackson is referred to repeatedly as "the entertainer."

The memo notes that the boy, now 14, and his 12-year-old brother--who also denied sexual abuse--expressed "a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies." The pair's sister, now 17, told a social worker that she accompanied the boys on "sleepovers at the entertainers home," but had "never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer."

The children's mother told investigators that Jackson was "like a father to the children and a part of her family." While acknowledging that her son "has slept in the same room as the entertainer," the woman claimed "they did not share a bed. The entertainer would sleep on the floor," according to the November 26 memo.

The joint probe by DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department ran from February 14-27 and, the memo states, the "investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department."

When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked "substantiated." A case is termed "not substantiated" when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded "unfounded" when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations.

As with many DCFS investigations, the Jackson abuse case began with a call to the agency's child abuse hotline. According to the memo, a "Child Abuse Referral" was phoned in on February 14 by a "school official" from the Los Angeles Unified School District, which oversees the city's sprawling public school system. Citing the prior week's ABC broadcast of "Living with Michael Jackson," the controversial Martin Bashir documentary, the school official lodged allegations of "general neglect by mother and sexual abuse by 'an entertainer,'" according to the summary memo. The school official identified both the cancer patient, then 13, and his younger brother as the "referred children."

While the school official is not further identified in the DCFS memo, published reports have indicated that the older boy was taunted by classmates after the documentary aired on ABC's "20/20" newsmagazine. During the February 6 program, the child was seen holding hands with Jackson and resting his head against the singer's shoulder. Jackson told Bashir that he had slept with many children unrelated to him, but insisted, "It's not sexual, we're going to sleep. I tuck them in...It's very charming, it's very sweet."

In a clear reference to fallout from the Bashir documentary, the boy's mother told investigators that "she believed the media had taken everything out of context," according to the memo, which summarizes the DCFS child abuse investigation. The "sensitive case" memo was prepared at the direction of Dr. Charles Sophy, a high-ranking DCFS official who joined the department in late-March, a month after the Jackson probe was completed. The memo was authored by Jennifer Hottenroth, a DCFS assistant regional administrator. In a brief telephone interview yesterday morning, Hottenroth declined to speak about her memo, saying, "I can't talk about it...I can refer you to our public affairs person. I can't comment on any of this." Sophy (pictured at right) did not return a message left with his assistant. Louise Grasmehr, a DCFS spokesperson, said that while she had been given a copy of the document by Hottenroth Monday morning, "We cannot comment on anything that is stated in the memo. Because it's all protected under confidentiality laws in California."

alic88
The boy's February 2003 interview with child abuse investigators--not to mention those with his family--appears to run counter to allegations he later made to law enforcement officials in Santa Barbara, where Jackson was arrested November 20 and released on $3 million bail. District Attorney Thomas Sneddon has said that he expects to file felony child molestation charges against Jackson next week. In addition to the boy's original denial of sexual abuse by Jackson, his younger brother's February 2003 statements also appear to contradict recent published reports claiming that the child has told Santa Barbara investigators that he witnessed his brother being molested by the star.

While it is unclear what, if any, effect the LAPD-DCFS investigation will have on a future Jackson prosecution, the performer's defense team will surely seize on the February 2003 probe's findings to question the current veracity and motives of the child and his family--and, of course, further muddy a case that already promises to be a difficult prosecution.

The child abuse investigation was immediately placed with the Sensitive Case Unit since department guidelines dictate that if "one of the clients in the referral is a public figure" or if the case's allegations "would be certain to generate media interest if they became known outside of DCFS," the matter requires utmost secrecy.

As with most DCFS abuse cases, a children's social worker (CSW) was dispatched to interview the boys, as was a LAPD investigator (the memo does not indicate whether the cop and the social worker conducted their interviews in tandem). In either case, it is likely that the children were questioned apart from their mother, since the abuse referral included allegations of neglect on the woman's part, according to a DCFS source familiar with agency operations.

The allegations examined this year in the LAPD-DCFS probe mirror sex abuse claims that surfaced in 1993, when a 13-year-old California boy claimed that the pop star molested him. Jackson, who was not charged in that case, reportedly made a multimillion dollar payment to settle a civil suit brought by the child and his family. Click here to read the boy's sworn declaration describing Jackson's alleged abuse.

PVS
guess my computer's f**ked 'cause i still cant get it sad

PVS
can anyone else get the link? this sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

perhaps the site is stored in your cache? i swear to you it wont load.
i want to check the nature of the site before i trust the article

alic88
IT IS THESMOKINGGUN.COM

u can even search it up there

MICHAEL JACKSON CHILD WELFARE SOCIETY
or MICHAEL JACKSON BOMBSHELL

THIS ARTICLE IS 100 PERCENT AUTHENTIC

PVS
quit your yelling
im posative the site exists. im saying it wont load.
thats the truth and screaming wont help it

alic88
sorry, but do check out thesmokinggun.com

that is where u will find it. and this thing is authentic trust me

PVS
well i think its either:

-my computer is f'd

-their server is down and the reason it loads for you is that its loading from your cache.

i tried loading the front page and it still wont work sad

alic88
allright do check it out when you can

Sadako of Girth
BTW on the remark earlier about "He (JC) described A penis, lot of us have them"etc...
Sorry to say that it was way more specific than that.
It was a precise description of distinctive marks and features specific enough for the police to be convinced utterly by JC's story 100%....
That strikes me as a bit more than 'penile coincidence'.....

FeceMan
Haha, he described Michael Jackson's penis.

"It looked like it was tupperware."

KharmaDog
alic88, before you posted that link to smokinggun.com you read all the evidence that they also have against Jackson right? No, probably not. Before you list a website that proves (to you) his innocence perhaps you should check out the rest of the website.

The fact that the previous kid could describe MJ's erect penis and birthmarks with 100% accuracy is just disturbing.

Afro Cheese
Lawyer: What if the accuser could describe Michael Jackson's penis? What would you think then?

Dave Chapelle: Man,anyone could describe Michael's penis! A head, a shaft, some hair, permed pressed....oh, and some glitter.

BlackC@t
I never really thought that the accusations were true erm

But I was never really sure.

ladygrim
i didnt think they were but i do fing mJ abit ' weird'

misha
FINALLY!
i knew that all the rumors were true roll eyes (sarcastic) seriously the public should be ashamed for themselves!!!
this is the best news ive heard in ages happy

KharmaDog
Before every one starts screaming that Michael Jackson is Guilty, and before everyone else start screaming that this proves that he was innocent, how about we wait until ALL the evidence is in?

PVS
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Before every one starts screaming that Michael Jackson is Guilty, and before everyone else start screaming that this proves that he was innocent, how about we wait until ALL the evidence is in?

EXACTLY

people say 'tsk tsk' and point their finger at everyone who is suspicious saying 'shame on you for assuming he might be guilty' based on the fact that the evidence is not in...THEN they turn around and declare that MJ is 100% innocent...with no knowledge of the evidence...

*cough*hypocrite*cough*

misha
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Before every one starts screaming that Michael Jackson is Guilty, and before everyone else start screaming that this proves that he was innocent, how about we wait until ALL the evidence is in?

ive thought he was innocent from the start erm im not waiting for anything ... its just been proven that "evidence" cant always be trusted erm

KharmaDog
Originally posted by misha
ive thought he was innocent from the start erm im not waiting for anything ... its just been proven that "evidence" cant always be trusted erm

I will not respond to you anymore as you have made it clear that you are incapable of rational thought.

PVS
Originally posted by misha
ive thought he was innocent from the start erm im not waiting for anything ... its just been proven that "evidence" cant always be trusted erm

ah yes, why dont we just throw away our whole system of law and declare all evidence untrustworthy.
roll eyes (sarcastic)

KharmaDog
Well PVS if a 15 year old girl can so easily pass judgement without know all (if any) of the evidence I think that the whole justice system is a waste of time.

PVS
but MJ's a teriffic dancer, and what a voice...surely he must be innocent

Jackie Malfoy
Is this proven a lie?Last time I saw it on tv the witness looked like he was under alot of presure and they were giving him a hard time about evrything.
Which is not fair.Because this is one thing not easy to talk about infront of others.I doubt it if he was lieing.JMmjnco

PVS
now im scared

JM just kinda made sense........kinda

KharmaDog
Surely a sign of the apocolypse, I sort of agree with Jackie eek!

botankus
laughing out loud

Fionnula
Micheal Jackson has an arrest warrant out for him at the moment..he didn't turn up for his trial.. roll eyes (sarcastic)

KharmaDog
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/10/jackson.trial/index.html

Late for a trial of this magnatude? I can't wait to see his reason. If anyone else conducted themselves like this joker does they would have had their bail revoked long ago. Well anyone who wasn't insanely rich or famous anyway.

Fionnula
his reason is a bad back..

WindDancer
Yeah thats what the reports are saying. MJ is getting too much stress with this trial. I feel kinda sad for him. The pressure must be getting to him.

Fionnula
i guess...but he's just facing the consequences of his actions

PVS
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Surely a sign of the apocolypse, I sort of agree with Jackie eek!

*sniff* *sniff* i smell brimstone confused

PVS
anyway, just wheel that f***er in on a hand truck ala hannibal lechtar.

amazing, only someone so rich can call in sick to his own trial laughing out loud

Alpha Centauri
This is exactly what I mean, it's really pretty sad that you're all waiting around for him to make the slightest "wrong" move before you tear him up like a pack of rabid wolves.

It doesn't matter whether he's found innocent or not PVS, does it? You've said before that you don't believe that the verdict is a decider. You're always gonna believe he's a rampant child molester regardless of the court ruling.

If he never touched those kids while sleeping in the same bed as them then what he did was "weird" at WORST. He hasn't broken the law, not yet. Unless evidence proves otherwise then I suggest you look at everything concerning this case and this case alone, and realise that until he's proven guilty, he's innocent. Saying "we'll never know the truth" is just a cowardly escape.

-AC

Draco69
SANTA MARIA, Calif. (March 10) - Michael Jackson arrived late to his child molestation trial Thursday to face a judge who threatened to arrest him and revoke his $3 million bail.

Jackson, who was said to have been treated at a hospital for a back problem, walked gingerly from his car to the courthouse, failing to beat a one-hour deadline the judge had set before activating an arrest warrant.

Jackson wore a jacket over pajama bottoms and slippers and appeared to be in pain. His movements were hesitant as he took little steps. He turned to acknowledge fans on his way in.

Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville had held onto the arrest warrant to give Jackson one hour to reach court from a hospital where his attorney told the court the singer was being treated for a serious back problem.

The flurry of activity began a day that was already expected to be eventful, with Jackson's accuser returning to the stand to testify about the key allegations against the singer.

Earlier, Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr., said, ''Mr. Jackson is at Cottage Hospital in Santa Ynez with a serious back problem. He does plan to come in.''

The judge, obviously angry, declared, ''I'm issuing a warrant for his arrest. I'm forfeiting his bail. I will hold the order for one hour.''

Mesereau, whose request that the judge talk to Jackson's doctor on the phone was turned down, said a short time later that Jackson was on his way.

Hospital spokeswoman Janet O'Neill said Jackson left Santa Ynez Valley Cottage Hospital at 8:45 a.m. It is about a 35-mile drive from the hospital to the court. O'Neill had no comment on Jackson's condition.

Mesereau had been observed talking urgently on his cell phone for about a half-hour before the session was to begin.

Jackson has had health problems that previously interrupted the proceedings. During the first week of jury selection he went to a hospital with flu symptoms. But he has been on time or early since then.

At the time of the bout with the flu, Melville told prospective jurors the delay was not part of a calculated attempt by anyone to slow down the trial.

''Mr. Jackson really was sick. He really did have the flu,'' the judge said at the time. ''I talked to his doctor. ... I wouldn't let anyone take advantage of us that way.''

On Wednesday, Jackson's young accuser faced the singer for the first time since leaving the singer's Neverland Ranch in March 2003, and described viewing sexually explicit images with the singer in his bedroom.

The 15-year-old was not asked about the molestation allegations before court ended Wednesday, but described viewing adult Internet sites with Jackson and others after the singer suggested he and his brother sleep in his room on their first visit to Neverland in 2000. The boy also testified that Jackson told him to ''call me daddy'' during the taping of a documentary.

The accuser followed to the stand his 14-year-old brother, who testified he saw Jackson fondle his sibling in late February or early March 2003.

The accuser gave the same account his brother had of looking at sexually explicit Web sites on their second night at Neverland after their parents gave them permission to sleep in Jackson's room.

The boy said one of Jackson's employees, Frank Tyson, began looking at sites on the Internet as the others watched.

The witness said they looked at women or teenage girls on about seven sites for a period of 15 to 30 minutes, and he repeated an account his brother had given about a remark Jackson allegedly made.

''There was this girl with her shirt up and it was all quiet and stuff and Michael's like, 'Got milk?''' he said.

At another point, Jackson whispered in the ear of his sleeping son, Prince Michael, saying his son was missing out and using a slang for female genitalia, the accuser said.

Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the boy, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a damaging TV documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bedroom. Jackson's defense contends the family has a history of filing false claims to get money.

The accuser, who was a cancer patient when he met Jackson, talked about attending a Los Angeles comedy camp hosted by club owner Jamie Masada, whom he would later ask to put him in touch with Jackson.

The boy said Jackson invited him to Neverland the first time they talked. He said Jackson called his hospital room as he was being treated for cancer, and they later talked on the phone about 20 times.

The boy said Jackson later invited him to appear in a documentary being produced by British journalist Martin Bashir and coached him on what to say. It aired on Feb. 6, 2003.

Associated Press Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch contributed to this report.

PVS
wtf are you ranting about?
the man has a trial to go to.
therefore, he has to be there.

and what i believe has no consequence on MJ, the jury, the legal system,etc.
so please quit the grandstanding, as if im destroying the american way of life.
i believe he did it. you believe he didn't. therefore we are both presumptuous.
difference: i can admit it

Alpha Centauri
Originally posted by PVS
and what i believe has no consequence on MJ, the jury, the legal system,etc.
so please quit the grandstanding, as if im destroying the american way of life.
i believe he did it. you believe he didn't. therefore we are both presumptuous.
difference: i can admit it

This is a thread to discuss his case, not his punctuality.

Secondly, I believe he didn't coz there's NOTHING to prove he did. You believe he did, and will continue to, despite an acquition. Based on what? "He'll never get convicted even if he IS one, we'll never know". Quite cowardly. Anyone can say that about ANY crime. I'm sure you don't say "He could still be a murderer" to every murder case.

-AC

Alpha Centauri
Hasn't all this been mentioned in the other thread?

-AC

PVS
thats me...a coward

every time i think you might be cool, you turn all obnoxious and pretensions

Fionnula
you compained about it being mentioned in the other thread..now your complaing becuase its been made into a thread so people don't talk about it in the court case thread..

PVS
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is a thread to discuss his case, not his punctuality.

Secondly, I believe he didn't coz there's NOTHING to prove he did. You believe he did, and will continue to, despite an acquition. Based on what? "He'll never get convicted even if he IS one, we'll never know". Quite cowardly. Anyone can say that about ANY crime. I'm sure you don't say "He could still be a murderer" to every murder case.

-AC


anyway, hiding behind the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is also 'cowardly' in that it is also a blanket statement to help you 'win'. you can also say that for ANY crime, and unless you have the evidence in YOUR hands nobody can argue that.

i argue towards his behavior and you squawk the constitution like a parrot.
well i'm not the court of law, i am an observer, and i call as i see.
deal with it and quit being a hypocrite...its so damn irritating

Alpha Centauri
Show me where I said "PVS you coward" please.

-AC

PVS
whatever dude, you must think your the only one who can decipher your own left handed slaps

Alpha Centauri
Considering only a quarter of that post was regarding the arrest I questioned it.

If that's what is to be discussed, good.

-AC

Alpha Centauri
Let's not throw labels around.

Show me where I called you one or don't bring it up. Saying you used a cowardly technique doesn't mean I'm calling you a coward. If I wanted to I would.

-AC

PVS
apparently i'm not allowed to discuss it in the other thread

Fionnula
will you two stop bitching at each other..i don't think this thread is about your petty grievances with each other

SaTsuJiN
why not just merge the jackson court threads?

Alpha Centauri
I have absolutely no grievances with PVS at all.

-AC

PVS
fine then:

Originally posted by PVS
anyway, hiding behind the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is also 'cowardly' in that it is also a blanket statement to help you 'win'. you can also say that for ANY crime, and unless you have the evidence in YOUR hands nobody can argue that.

i argue towards his behavior and you squawk the constitution like a parrot.
well i'm not the court of law, i am an observer, and i call as i see.
deal with it and quit being a hypocrite...its so damn irritating

please forgive the irritation but you throw stones from a glass house

Alpha Centauri
I'm not hiding behind innocent till proven guilty. He's got nothing that proves him to be guilty. If the evidence was mounting up and it was undeniable, I'd think differently. I don't have any reason to believe he is guilty.

You argue towards his behaviour? Such as what? You made vicious assumptions. "Is it not f*cking obvious he's a paedophile?". Come on now.

You call as you see? See what though? You've seen as much as I have and you're calling the man a paedophile.

I'm no hypocrite, you're just trying to twist my words for your own benefit, picking out things that aren't there to try and make me seem faulty.

I'm not gonna get into me Vs you coz that's irrelevant.

-AC

PVS
i will say again, its not my place to deliver a verdict.
i just use common sense and deduct my own belief. you may choose to
believe that i fall for public fanaticism, but its really just how i view it, and if 99.9% of the people agreed with you, i would still stand my ground on this.

his pattern of behavior is seriously questionable in that he is compulsory. think about it, what do you LOVE to do...anything...video games...snowboarding...whatever...something that you just love to do and hope you never have to stop...

NOW you find out the the public cant stand that you do this correct? so you do it anyway...f*** em right?

AND THEN it turns out that your very freedom is on the line for what you view as being completely innocent. what do you do?

as for me, i would just cease, regardless. why? because i dont need it (whatever) to live, i would be miserable without it...but i would be in hell if i was sent to jail. common sense would prevail, however unjust it would be that i give up something innocent that i love...

...unless i couldnt...unless i was addicted...compulsive

AC, its obvious that MJ CANT stop. he HAS to sleep and play with small children. its not a preference in befriending kids, its a NECESSITY.
why would any sane man put his life on the line just to play tea party with a bunch of toddlers?

PVS
.damn double post embarrasment

PVS
i just requested a merge

Alpha Centauri
See, when you do that, it's easier to understand you. Thanks for clearing it up.

You have your view which I trust you deduced by yourself, whether I think it's BS or not, your opinion is yours, that's fine.

Situations would suggest he's compulsive however, it still stands that if he really has done NOTHING wrong then he doesn't have anything to worry about, see what I'm saying? He can't be jailed for hanging with kids.

-AC

Draco69
I will go down with this ship!


Oh well. Everyone go to my Hell House thread. It's a lot more interesting.

Linkalicious
Did he actually get arrested or was it just a threat?

I don't know when he actually made it to the court room.

PVS
AC, we live in a free country, but that term is meaningless.
innocent people fry all the time, and he's had to pay out millions in
hush money out of fear of a 'guilty' verdict. he knows what he is risking.

the only time i hear of people persisting with any behavior which could potentially end their lives...addiction is involved.

speiderman
The thing is we have been down this road before. He was accused of molestation years ago. It is not that hard to belive that Michale Jackson has molested another kid. However the kid claiming a molestation has a family that supposedly might have wanted to take advantage of Mr. Jacksion.

PVS
as i said before, they ALL want to take advantage.
these soulless scum would throw their own children into the fire
in hopes of making a profit.

whether or not he did it, its well speculated that he has. nobody is certain.
yet these vultures would do the ultimate unnatural act and use their own
child...flesh and blood...to make money.

and as far as the previous hush money, do you
really believe those kids will ever see a dime of it from
their parents? i dont know whether or not jackson deserves hell,
but i am certain down to my core that those parents do.

SaTsuJiN

Fionnula
if he is innocent he's not doing himself any favours by messing the judge around with these 'illnesses'..it doesn't help his case at all...

alic88
^ certainly does not, that was pretty stupid considering he was late also in january

misha
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I will not respond to you anymore as you have made it clear that you are incapable of rational thought.

ok fine but let me point out that youre not changing your mind either ... doesnt mean im not gonna respond to your posts schmoll

DCLXVI
I think that Jackson definitely did it the first time.....but that this time, it was just the parents using their child to further their selfish needs. wink

alic88
well opinions r respected, but he has not been convicted of child molesting anyone. therefore he is innocent

DCLXVI
"Has not been convicted" does not mean he did not do it - it means that there was not enough evidence. Pehaps he didn't do it, but you have to admit, sleeping with little kids in his bed is VERY strange.....

alic88
it is very odd, strange, but he cant be called a child molester because of that only.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>