Michael Jackson Trial Discussion

No feel free.

Go for it.

Quote and burn me. Because legal knowledge aside, we've been saying the same thing. You trying to say I don't get it doesn't quite work. Because you understand what I was saying, so let's not pretend you didn't.

Had enough of what? Nobody has quoted or burned me at all. So feel free to be the first 🙂.

-AC

naaaa. after your attempt to weasel out of the 'idiot' comment,
its crystal clear to me now that any pointing out of an error on your part,
however insignificant, will be sharply denied...no matter how blatently wrong you were proven.

HEY!!!! 😱 ever think of running for office? 😛

I didn't weasel out of it.

It's simply called knowing what you say, what you mean and also how others will interpret it. Because on this site there are far too many people seemingly scurrying around trying to find something, so it's fun to know there's no bases uncovered. I say what I mean, I mean what I say and most importantly, I know what I'm saying.

As a result, weaseling out of things isn't necessary. So stop trying to weasel IN points that aren't there 😉.

If it was as blatant as any of you claim, I'd admit it. It's not, and regardless of how much you'd LOVE to prove it, you can't and you know you can't. Bites you doesn't it? (Note that it was a question, I'm not assuming it does. I'm asking. Bases covered).

And yes. I am the president already. Of Earth.

-AC

you miss the point 😖

it was proven but you....oh forget it 🤪
i need some ibuprofen

Innocent with a twist. MJ was found innocent by a jury where a juror publically said he think MJ probably is a molester but it wasnt proven in this case. Guess we havent really heard the last from this trial yet, do we see a book and a film about it?

I heard that in some country...I think it was scotland there are 3 different types a jury can vote "guilty", "not guilty" and here comes the tricky part "not proven" .... if that has been said before.......well then I said it again

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

And yes. I am the president already. Of Earth.

-AC

I always knew the earth was doomed. tomcat wheelchair tank

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I didn't weasel out of it.

It's simply called knowing what you say, what you mean and also how others will interpret it. Because on this site there are far too many people seemingly scurrying around trying to find something, so it's fun to know there's no bases uncovered. I say what I mean, I mean what I say and most importantly, I know what I'm saying.

As a result, weaseling out of things isn't necessary. So stop trying to weasel IN points that aren't there 😉.

If it was as blatant as any of you claim, I'd admit it. It's not, and regardless of how much you'd LOVE to prove it, you can't and you know you can't. Bites you doesn't it? (Note that it was a question, I'm not assuming it does. I'm asking. Bases covered).

And yes. I am the president already. Of Earth.

-AC

Funny that you say we haven't heard the last of it.

If Jackson stops sharing his bed with kids, you'll have absolutely nothing to pick him out on.

We'd have heard the last of it if everyone dropped it now that the trial is over and a verdict is delivered. But we won't because it's MJ.

-AC

in such a shadey case i wouldnt drop it for anyone.

please stop arguing your own assumptions AC

😬 This is turning into one big argument.

'turning into'?
where have you been? 😛

its been a battle royal from page 1

Originally posted by PVS
in such a shadey case i wouldnt drop it for anyone.

please stop arguing your own assumptions AC

Yet I've noticed it seems to be perfectly fine for others to assume though. Hmm.

Either way, that's not a wild assumption. I'm basing it on the attitude of many people interested in the trial.

-AC

Lol PVS 😮

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yet I've noticed it seems to be perfectly fine for others to assume though. Hmm.

Either way, that's not a wild assumption. I'm basing it on the attitude of many people interested in the trial.

-AC

its a logical fallacy

you declare in this post that there are some who only argue this topic based on their irrational hatred for MJ, and anything they find "just weird", which is true.

then you label all who would question the decision of the court as a bunch of said haters, which is simple assumption spoken as truth.

I never once labelled EVERYONE who questioned the verdict a bunch of haters.

I think it's ridiculous that after all this time people can't accept the verdict. Because I DO believe that if he was found guilty, anyone trying to argue otherwise would be made fun of. I also believe that if he was found guilty, he would be believed to be undeniably guilty. As opposed to being found not guilty (innocent) and the truth being "unknown".

-AC

If Jackson stops sharing his bed with kids, you'll have absolutely nothing to pick him out on.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never once labelled EVERYONE who questioned the verdict a bunch of haters

Originally posted by finti
can always turn it towards his music

or his chimp, or his plastic surgery, or his snappy fashion sense, or his... never mind, this could go on for hours.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yet I've noticed it seems to be perfectly fine for others to assume though. Hmm.

Either way, that's not a wild assumption. I'm basing it on the attitude of many people interested in the trial.

-AC

Fair enough then AC... 🙂

We're are just basing our opinions on the full outcome of the trial, not just the verdict that they came out with just on the Arviso case.

IE: Throughout his last 12yrs (AT least) of conduct and the evidence pertaining to his past offences that have been recorded by law departments that he paid off against going through the rigmorole of having it made public... (Although it came out anyways via third parties privilaged with the lowdown who WERE NOT gagged by the order)

..AND that the very jury that dealt with his criminal proceedings deemed to go public with the views that he HAD molested boys in the past, but had sufficient doubt in the Arviso case based on lack of concrete evidence, which is a common problem when you are dealing with someone who is a long time practioner of said crime (especially one surrounded by powerful, professional advisors...)

If you are so adament that they are wrong in their footnotes based on revealed past evidence (As many are bound to be when focusing only on the verdict of the Arviso case)
then let us see what action is taken against said jurors for slander/ deformation of character... I forecast none.

And the fact the his LAWYERS made the statement of "He won't be having anymore young boys in his bed-He has learned his lesson"
does nothing to cast aside the image of a man who only looks guided away from paedophilic looking behavior by his handlers and not the mans own judgement, does it....

Honestly, People are only sniffing because there really is a valid stink......
Thats the way I see it....