Originally posted by debbiejo
I've always been one to give a benefit of the doubt, but his actions show intention...It's only obvious..Pedophiles have obvious behavior signs.
Well, first off you're wrong. His actions show intention? To who? To a presumptuous f*ckwit, yes.
I don't assume that he sexually molests kids because he hangs around with them. But then, I'm logical.
-AC
Originally posted by finti
I think that the evidence provided in this case and evidence from back to 1993 is enough to prove his guilt, to many the most anticipated evidence the alleged drawing of MJ s private part never made it to and one can wonder why. I think the prosecution made some bad choices when it came to witnesses and it puzzles me that MJ himself didnt have to take the stand. I know they have some sort of laws in the states for the accused not having to take the stand. Im not really sure what that laws says though
I think the law is that if you take the stand, you can be cross examined to death...Usually a guilty person will not take the stand.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well, first off you're wrong. His actions show intention? To who? To a presumptuous f*ckwit, yes.I don't assume that he sexually molests kids because he hangs around with them. But then, I'm logical.
-AC
How many kids coming forward would it take before you'd stop yours from hangin out with him then.
What does the parents being shit and dubious have to do with Jackson?
What the hell are you talking about?
You said his behaviour makes it obvious of what he does. It doesn't, at all.
I know a man who is of unstable mind, hangs around with kids. The town started vicious rumours that the man was a paedophile, based on? His actions. The man had never improperly touched a kid in his life.
The mouth is quicker than the brain.
-AC
I understand that this conversation has gotten a little heated, AC, but you really need to get your emotions in check. I've witnessed a lot, and I do mean a lot of hostility coming from your end. Regardless if you people agree or disagree on the verdict, the logic from which you base your arguements, or derive your stance, there's no place for namecalling or insults.
Keep it civil, or I'll have to move to have the thread closed, and instigators punished.
Thanks.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What does the parents being shit and dubious have to do with Jackson?What the hell are you talking about?
You said his behaviour makes it obvious of what he does. It doesn't, at all.
I know a man who is of unstable mind, hangs around with kids. The town started vicious rumours that the man was a paedophile, based on? His actions. The man had never improperly touched a kid in his life.
The mouth is quicker than the brain.
-AC
Like I said I give people the benefit of doubt, though I don't like to make decisions with out being the courtroom my self just like the Timothy MaVey case.
I do no that 1 out of 5 households have abuse going on in them.
I Know that the rich and famous don't get their just deserts.
I know that pedophiles like kids.
I know that kids a easily manipulated.
I know what psychological signs look like.
And I do know that some mothers would put their kids in harms way for money.
Then you add it up.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well, first off you're wrong. His actions show intention? To who? To a presumptuous f*ckwit, yes.I don't assume that he sexually molests kids because he hangs around with them. But then, I'm logical.
-AC
I agree there.
And to bring up the subject again, even if it was his intentions, who's fault is it for leaving the kids in the house alone with him?
Originally posted by Morbid4Daniel
I agree there.And to bring up the subject again, even if it was his intentions, who's fault is it for leaving the kids in the house alone with him?
Well buit this is a Bullshit arguement...you can'T blame the mother...if he did it, it is not the fault of the mother but of him cause he would be a sick ****......but somehow I doubt it.
Name calling or insults?
The only one I'm aware of was the thing about large skulled friend. Don't quite see how that's any means to be pulled up about it. Seeing as people get away with worse and I never intentionally attack people with venom (despite belief in the contrary).
Originally posted by debbiejo
Like I said I give people the benefit of doubt, though I don't like to make decisions with out being the courtroom my self just like the Timothy MaVey case.I do no that 1 out of 5 households have abuse going on in them.
I Know that the rich and famous don't get their just deserts.
I know that pedophiles like kids.
I know that kids a easily manipulated.
I know what psychological signs look like.
And I do know that some mothers would put their kids in harms way for money.Then you add it up.
You are the one doing the adding. Specifically 2 + 2, and you seem to be getting 47.
None of what you just posted even remotely puts Jackson in the line to be called a paedophile.
And what's with all this "It doesn't mean he didn't do anything." crap? It doesn't mean he did. Let's not ignore the complete other side here.
MfD, you can't say that if he did it, he isn't wrong because the parents are idiots. Whether they were extremely dumb or not, if he was a paedophile he'd have to face justice. However, it's as far from that as anything.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou are the one doing the adding. Specifically 2 + 2, and you seem to be getting 47.
None of what you just posted even remotely puts Jackson in the line to be called a paedophile.
-AC
He's been pointed to before, now if he was REALLY concerned about it not happening again, he could of always made sure he wasn't alone with the kid. End of speculations.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well buit this is a Bullshit arguement...you can'T blame the mother...if he did it, it is not the fault of the mother but of him cause he would be a sick ****......but somehow I doubt it.
Yeah but thats like saying you can leave your kid on anyone's doorstep these days. It isnt a bullshit argument, its a fact..
Here was my response to all of this:
So MJ was acquitted on all counts. Was he actually guilty? Possibly on past cases of molestation. On this case? Probably not, with that filthy, money-grubbing woman who deserves a swift kick to the kidneys.I can't say for sure. The truth is locked away in his head and the heads of those children. We'll never know conclusively. However, I can guarantee that Jackson will be a little more careful in choosing his invitees to a slumber party in the future.
🙂
He's said he's not gonna allow kids to share his bed anymore.
Many people have been POINTED to. That's the problem, people point before thinking if they should be pointing. It happened to Matthew Kelly and the man was completely innocent. Now though, he will be synonymous with paedophila off the back of being accused.
It's not an accusation that can be thrown around weightlessly, but it happens because of presumptuous idiots. It's happening now around where I live. There's a man driving around in a van, that I've been told has dirt buggies in. Every parent has jumped to the guns and started calling him a paedophile and telling their kids to stay away. That could be your Dad, or Brother.
Debbie, please stop pulling random paedophile stats out of thin air.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Name calling or insults?The only one I'm aware of was the thing about large skulled friend. Don't quite see how that's any means to be pulled up about it. Seeing as people get away with worse and I never intentionally attack people with venom (despite belief in the contrary).
Alls I am saying is try and refrain from the underhanded quips, i.e. "****-wits", questioning Finti's reasoning, and suggesting people form coherent sentences. I feel your passion, I really do, but, and this is for everyone, keep it civil. The thread is already heated enough without these instances of provocation.
Originally posted by Morbid4DanielWell just as you are saying..Michale Jackson seems to be a rather friendly not child molester person......oh and the mom was a greedy whore...well at least I think so....
Yeah but thats like saying you can leave your kid on anyone's doorstep these days. It isnt a bullshit argument, its a fact..
Anyways aboot this documentary back a few years..I thought Michael was ttreated unfair by this "journalist" ... from all he said it seemed he was a very weird but all in all nice person....the guy just twisted his words around.....
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Name calling or insults?The only one I'm aware of was the thing about large skulled friend. Don't quite see how that's any means to be pulled up about it. Seeing as people get away with worse and I never intentionally attack people with venom (despite belief in the contrary).
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well, first off you're wrong. His actions show intention? To who? To a presumptuous f*ckwit, yes.
-AC
I think he saw through that one, as did most of us. Calling someone a f*ckwit in a round about way, and calling a person a f*ckwit out rightly is still calling someone a f*ckwit.