Michael Jackson Trial Discussion

The thing is, I don't actually doubt you will do that. It's sad really. Not even for MJ that much, but for those who have nothing better to do.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
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.

The verdict is the outcome of the trial. You realise this, I hope.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
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)

What conduct? This is what I don't understand. Hanging around with kids? Surgery? What conduct? None of that has anything to do with it. The only thing you could connect is the fact that he loves kids, so what? What sick, twisted person's logic connects hanging around with kids, to sleeping with kids? That causes trouble and hysteria where there's no need. I've seen it happen to men who are nothing but normal people. Yet, people will always need something to distract them from their own lives.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
..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...)

On the Jury going public: I know lawyers, extremely high powered lawyers. I know people who have been on jury service multiple times. When they whittle it down to a selected number, nothing can stop one or more of those people from giving a completely biased decision. If one of them happened to hate Jackson anyway, he could see all the evidence that points to innocence and STILL say guilty. Nobody could stop him. It wasn't the whole jury who stepped up and said "He's guilty, we just can't get him."

Secondly, why call him a long time practioner of said crime? I'll say it again, if there isn't enough (or any) evidence to convict him of these crimes and the witnesses or people testifying just get more and more dubious, what makes you still think the man is some rampant paedophile? You've seen as much as me or anyone else. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the man is what you say he is.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
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.

Why do you refer to the verdict of the Arviso case as if it doesn't matter? If he was found guilty I guarantee that the verdict would be as concrete as can be. Now he's innocent, it stinks. If you can sit there and deny that, I think you're a liar.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
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....

Legal units issue statements. When bands break up, the webmaster posts on their site what has happened. It doesn't mean he forced the split does it?

No.

-AC

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

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The thing is, I don't actually doubt you will do that. It's sad really. Not even for MJ that much, but for those who have nothing better to do.

The verdict is the outcome of the trial. You realise this, I hope.

What conduct? This is what I don't understand. Hanging around with kids? Surgery? What conduct? None of that has anything to do with it. The only thing you could connect is the fact that he loves kids, so what? What sick, twisted person's logic connects hanging around with kids, to sleeping with kids? That causes trouble and hysteria where there's no need. I've seen it happen to men who are nothing but normal people. Yet, people will always need something to distract them from their own lives.

On the Jury going public: I know lawyers, extremely high powered lawyers. I know people who have been on jury service multiple times. When they whittle it down to a selected number, nothing can stop one or more of those people from giving a completely biased decision. If one of them happened to hate Jackson anyway, he could see all the evidence that points to innocence and STILL say guilty. Nobody could stop him. It wasn't the whole jury who stepped up and said "He's guilty, we just can't get him."

Secondly, why call him a long time practioner of said crime? I'll say it again, if there isn't enough (or any) evidence to convict him of these crimes and the witnesses or people testifying just get more and more dubious, what makes you still think the man is some rampant paedophile? You've seen as much as me or anyone else. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the man is what you say he is.

Why do you refer to the verdict of the Arviso case as if it doesn't matter? If he was found guilty I guarantee that the verdict would be as concrete as can be. Now he's innocent, it stinks. If you can sit there and deny that, I think you're a liar.

Legal units issue statements. When bands break up, the webmaster posts on their site what has happened. It doesn't mean he forced the split does it?

No.

-AC

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

1) Sad? How does acknowleging the broader perspective make you sad..? I have plenty to do... And OF COURSE...ANYONE with a differing opinion than to your own ALWAYS has no life, don't they AC...? 🙄

2) I do realise this... Along with the FULL implications of the case outcome...Not just the verdict given on THIS instance of attempted prosecution...

3) The conduct of taking baths with Jordy Chandler and getting a full, describable erection from it and grooming kids for similar treatment over the years would be just ONE instance of recorded perversion relating to just THAT case...

4)"What sick, twisted person's logic connects hanging around with kids, to sleeping with kids?"
I wouldn't know, I wasn't thinking like that... after all, that would be plain ignorant.... And there you go AGAIN with the "Distract people form their own lives" bit.. *Yawn*

5) The Jordy Chandler incidents (In themselves)= A long time ago= Long time practioner.

6)"Why do you refer to the verdict of the Arviso case as if it doesn't matter? If he was found guilty I guarantee that the verdict would be as concrete as can be. Now he's innocent, it stinks. If you can sit there and deny that, I think you're a liar."

Well obviously it does matter, as does the FULL outcome of the trial...
If he was found guilty of this instance, there would be just as many die hard fans and "pro-molesters rights" people just queing up for their say... and I think both sides are needed in the interests of balance and giving people a fair chance....

7) Sure they do... Legal units DO... Thats right, but in MJ's position, I think that it would have been more effective from the man's own lips, rather than risk it being seen by the masses as a begrudging statement made by his handlers....

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
1) Sad? How does acknowleging the broader perspective make you sad..? I have plenty to do... And OF COURSE...ANYONE with a differing opinion than to your own ALWAYS has no life, don't they AC...? 🙄

On the last notion, no. Not at all. I've met and discussed with many people who share some of your opinions on this case. I appreciate your right to have that opinion. by all means. I don't understand why, miraculously after the verdict (innocent), that there are all these little loopholes and people continually saying "He's not guilty, but not innocent" nonsense.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
2) I do realise this... Along with the FULL implications of the case outcome...Not just the verdict given on THIS instance of attempted prosecution...

Full implications of the outcome? You're referring to that nonsensical theory of which I mentioned in the above reply?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
3) The conduct of taking baths with Jordy Chandler and getting a full, describable erection from it and grooming kids for similar treatment over the years would be just ONE instance of recorded perversion relating to just THAT case...

Taking baths with Jordy Chandler means he is a paedophile? Riiiiight, riiight. (Because that's what you're implying).

Secondly, how do you know he got an erection from it? Oh yes that's right. The kid described "MJ's penis" and as a result, people assumed that MJ whacked it out and had sex with the kid. People don't take baths with clothes on you know.

Either way, that's one, very shaky, very dubious instance you've raised considering that you claimed you had 12 plus years worth of reasoning that says he's a molester.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
4)"What sick, twisted person's logic connects hanging around with kids, to sleeping with kids?"
I wouldn't know, I wasn't thinking like that... after all, that would be plain ignorant.... And there you go AGAIN with the "Distract people form their own lives" bit.. *Yawn*

Good, then we agree that his love of children is no reason to claim he's guilty. Excellent. Secondly, people are factually like that in some cases. Why do you think tabloids thrive on this? Because people need stuff to talk about, might be one reason.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
5) The Jordy Chandler incidents (In themselves)= A long time ago= Long time practioner.

Right, ok. Still waiting for how that proves he's a long time practioner of the paedophilic arts though.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
6)"Why do you refer to the verdict of the Arviso case as if it doesn't matter? If he was found guilty I guarantee that the verdict would be as concrete as can be. Now he's innocent, it stinks. If you can sit there and deny that, I think you're a liar."

Well obviously it does matter, as does the FULL outcome of the trial...
If he was found guilty of this instance, there would be just as many die hard fans and "pro-molesters rights" people just queing up for their say... and I think both sides are needed in the interests of balance and giving people a fair chance....

Full outcome meaning this current culmination which, incase you missed it, was the not guilty verdict. Glad we could tidy that up.

I agree that there is heavy bias on each side, a fool would deny it. The point I'm making is, there are people (some on this site) who are so unbelievably dead set on seeing him be convicted of child molestation, wishing for it also (disturbingly enough), that if he was found guilty, there would be no debate. There would be no "It doesn't mean he did it". It would just be taken as face value that he was guilty of the crimes and people continuing to present fair reasoning to his possible innocence, would be told to drop it. Now, not only did not guilty get its meaning changed, but people are continually searching for new ways to pick things out.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
7) Sure they do... Legal units DO... Thats right, but in MJ's position, I think that it would have been more effective from the man's own lips, rather than risk it being seen by the masses as a begrudging statement made by his handlers....

1: They're called lawyers, not handlers. No excuse for ignorance. The man's not an animal, he's a human.

2: Well I appreciate what you think and all that, but that doesn't make it fact. You finding it strange that his legal unit (coz that's what they are) actually made the statement, thereby drawing the conclusion that it was their decision, doesn't mean that it actually happened that way.

-AC

i gotta hand it to you AC, i dunno how you do it 🍺

*Waits for someone's sly, witty remark in relation to Deano's post*

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*Waits for someone's sly, witty remark in relation to Deano's post*

-AC

Hmm not for me ...nope....you are a pretty decent debater though

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm not for me ...nope....you are a pretty decent debater though

oh he the best..he's thee very best..not as good as me but...cant have it all in life

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*Waits for someone's sly, witty remark in relation to Deano's post*

-AC

*marvels at AC's attempt at reverse psychology*

well at least you have another awe struck fan to massage your ego 🙄

Originally posted by PVS
*marvels at AC's attempt at reverse psychology*

well at least you have another awe struck fan to massage your ego 🙄

ive always said you were crazy..and now i finally know..

Originally posted by Deano
i gotta hand it to you AC, i dunno how you do it 🍺

Well, it's not from spending all his time at rense.com.

Is that sly or witty enough for you AC?

Originally posted by PVS
*marvels at AC's attempt at reverse psychology*

well at least you have another awe struck fan to massage your ego 🙄

Well at least you marvelled at me 😉.

I was genuinely waiting for it though.

Kharma: Lovely stuff 🙂.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
On the last notion, no. Not at all. I've met and discussed with many people who share some of your opinions on this case. I appreciate your right to have that opinion. by all means. I don't understand why, miraculously after the verdict (innocent), that there are all these little loopholes and people continually saying "He's not guilty, but not innocent" nonsense.

Full implications of the outcome? You're referring to that nonsensical theory of which I mentioned in the above reply?

Taking baths with Jordy Chandler means he is a paedophile? Riiiiight, riiight. (Because that's what you're implying).

Secondly, how do you know he got an erection from it? Oh yes that's right. The kid described "MJ's penis" and as a result, people assumed that MJ whacked it out and had sex with the kid. People don't take baths with clothes on you know.

Either way, that's one, very shaky, very dubious instance you've raised considering that you claimed you had 12 plus years worth of reasoning that says he's a molester.

Good, then we agree that his love of children is no reason to claim he's guilty. Excellent. Secondly, people are factually like that in some cases. Why do you think tabloids thrive on this? Because people need stuff to talk about, might be one reason.

Right, ok. Still waiting for how that proves he's a long time practioner of the paedophilic arts though.

Full outcome meaning this current culmination which, incase you missed it, was the not guilty verdict. Glad we could tidy that up.

I agree that there is heavy bias on each side, a fool would deny it. The point I'm making is, there are people (some on this site) who are so unbelievably dead set on seeing him be convicted of child molestation, wishing for it also (disturbingly enough), that if he was found guilty, there would be no debate. There would be no "It doesn't mean he did it". It would just be taken as face value that he was guilty of the crimes and people continuing to present fair reasoning to his possible innocence, would be told to drop it. Now, not only did not guilty get its meaning changed, but people are continually searching for new ways to pick things out.

1: They're called lawyers, not handlers. No excuse for ignorance. The man's not an animal, he's a human.

2: Well I appreciate what you think and all that, but that doesn't make it fact. You finding it strange that his legal unit (coz that's what they are) actually made the statement, thereby drawing the conclusion that it was their decision, doesn't mean that it actually happened that way.

-AC

Not a nonsensical theory. Fact. JC was also in that position apparently because he was going down on Jackson.... Making Jackson a paedo in my book...

Nope. Not shaky... this was an incident that took place. Jackson paid out to surpress its release into the media.

Right Ok... Still waiting for you to acknowledge that having soapy bathtime fun with other peoples kids while getting them to go down on you as a 30 odd yr old man is not unpaedophilic...

And yep. It IS good that we both agree that having love for kids is good and not neccessarily evil, but then you love your parents too, but is it appropriate to enter into sexual relations with them....??? Of course not.

Paedophilic ARTS....????

"Full outcome meaning this current culmination which, incase you missed it, was the not guilty verdict. Glad we could tidy that up."

Wow. Did you even READ my post....? As I said. You have to take in the full out come yes INCLUDING the Jury verdict pertaining only to the Arviso case...

I call them handlers because thats what they do for him... Some handle his legal affairs...(Lawyers) Some handle his image (Image consultants) and others handle his money (Accountants) etc etc etc.....

And OK. Thanks for seeing part of my side on the Announcement issue..
As I already said, it would have been seen as a damn sight more sincere than having a 3rd party do it for him...

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Well, it's not from spending all his time at rense.com.

Is that sly or witty enough for you AC?

not very witty ASSSSSSSSSHOLE!
least my threads are more interesting than yours!😄

Originally posted by Deano
not very witty ASSSSSSSSSHOLE!
least my threads are more [asinine] than yours!😄

dont mind me...
just correcting your spelling 🙂

this is fun 😂

Originally posted by Deano
not very witty ASSSSSSSSSHOLE!

Perhaps you should pay more attention to the insult thread?

Originally posted by Deano

least my threads are more interesting than yours!😄

More like your threads are the least interesting. Your conspiracy threads are not so much interesting as they seem to be a desperate plea for help or attention. But keep posting them if for no other reason that PVS needs a good laugh once and a while.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Not a nonsensical theory. Fact. JC was also in that position apparently because he was going down on Jackson.... Making Jackson a paedo in my book...

He was found not guilty. Which unless you've missed out, means he was innocent in the trial. Innocent. Not guilty.

You're missing a few pages in that book of yours pal.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope. Not shaky... this was an incident that took place. Jackson paid out to surpress its release into the media.

Proof? Gonna need to see factual proof of that. Because it LOOKS (might be wrong) like you're just leaping again. Just like you assume paying means guilt.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Right Ok... Still waiting for you to acknowledge that having soapy bathtime fun with other peoples kids while getting them to go down on you as a 30 odd yr old man is not unpaedophilic...

Right Ok, still waiting for the 12 years of proof (factual or strong) that says he was a paedophile. Strangely enough, the bath was the only item in your theory that actually held water.

Don't quite know why you are insisting so vehemently that an innocent man is a paedophile. It's as if you want him to be. Never mind the fact that you're claiming he forced the kid to fellate him with NOTHING to back it up.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And yep. It IS good that we both agree that having love for kids is good and not neccessarily evil, but then you love your parents too, but is it appropriate to enter into sexual relations with them....??? Of course not.

Of course not. So where does Jackson come into this? B.Y.O.P (Bring Your Own Proof).

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Paedophilic ARTS....????

It's over your head.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
"Full outcome meaning this current culmination which, incase you missed it, was the not guilty verdict. Glad we could tidy that up."

Wow. Did you even READ my post....? As I said. You have to take in the full out come yes INCLUDING the Jury verdict pertaining only to the Arviso case...

Well how many times has he been convicted of paedophilia or child molestation? Because the last time I checked he wasn't a guilty man.

To add to that, not only do your prior claims hold as much water as a bottomless saucepan, but you seem to have overlooked the fact that we are primarily discussion the Arviso case. Note the thread title and such.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I call them handlers because thats what they do for him... Some handle his legal affairs...(Lawyers) Some handle his image (Image consultants) and others handle his money (Accountants) etc etc etc.....

Slick, but fair.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And OK. Thanks for seeing part of my side on the Announcement issue..
As I already said, it would have been seen as a damn sight more sincere than having a 3rd party do it for him...

Well that's his choice. Doesn't mean he didn't make the choice.

-AC

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Perhaps you should pay more attention to the insult thread?

More like your threads are the least interesting. Your conspiracy threads are not so much interesting as they seem to be a desperate plea for help or attention. But keep posting them if for no other reason that PVS needs a good laugh once and a while.

attention? desperate? i dont think so...and i will keep posting them, till you start bloody well enjoyin em

lets look at your threads:

opinions
insults
bill o reilly

really intersting stuff there

Originally posted by KharmaDog
But keep posting them if for no other reason that PVS needs a good laugh once and a while.

please disregard KD's last statement.
the rense.com threads were mildly amusing (and at the same time irritating)
but are quite boring now. not that i care about his threads. i just hate when
he monopolised OTHER topics by spamming said theories. thankfully he seems to have put a stop to that.

Originally posted by PVS
please disregard KD's last statement.
the rense.com threads were mildly amusing (and at the same time irritating)
but are quite boring now. not that i care about his threads. i just hate when
he monopolised OTHER topics by spamming said theories. thankfully he seems to have put a stop to that.

im not spamming....just because my view of the world is different than yours. Sometimes i may say something that you feel as no relevance to the thread..but to me it sometimes might have relevance
does it really matter if its rense.com? not everything is bullshit..the people on that site dont post stuff for the fun of it..
leave it at thaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

notice i said that you seem to have put a stop to it.
it was just very annoying when you USED to squash all political
discussions with your 'enslaved microchipped population' theory.
its one thing to post it once and leave it at that, and another to
continuously copy and paste the same paragraphs in the same thread (you know...spam)

but it seems you've outgrown that, so thanks 🙂