Michael Jackson Trial Discussion

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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 [/B]

I AGREE

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

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.

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....

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

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.