Michael Jackson Trial Discussion

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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.......

......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

Have I posted in here yet?

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

^ 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?