Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So in every single case where a man has those relationships with a child he is in fact a sexual predator?The court disagreed with you by the way...
So any man who does this is a predator?
So any man who does this is a predator?
Nice use of the term supposedly...
So my babysitter as a child was grooming me and my brothers for sex?
Nothing you have presented is viable evidence, it can easily be explained away for what it is- a vague portrait painted around the character in question (MJ) but made opaque enough to share the incidents with indeed, millions of men. Some of whom are predators...
Once again, he was found not guilty- it wasn't some sort of sham trial either, everyone was trawling over it and he was found innocent. Where is your actual evidence?
Where is the records of children complaining IMMEDIATELY after the incident?
Where are the reliable eyewitness accounts from reliable characters?
Where is the forensic evidence?
Did you actually read anything I wrote?
Your strawman argument of "so every man who does this is a sexual predator" is about the most obviously pathetic strawman in the history of these forums and that really is saying something.
What I said is these are known and documented behaviours of sexual predators that Michael Jackson exhibited towards children...None of those actions were vague and applied to Jackson. They were his documented either by video evidence or by testimony.
As for the forensic evidence...Again...did you actually read anything i posted or did you just read the 1st couple of lines and jump to a pathetically reactionary response?
Do all children in sexual abuse cases compain immediately after it happens or do some live with it for years and years?
It's logically not enough to prove it, either.
It's massive circumstantial evidence of his potential sexual predator behaviour...But the case wasn't to prove whether he exhibited those traits or not...It was about specific cases for which physical evidence is extremely difficult to prove (not just in this case but in a huge amount of sexual abuse cases involving adults or children)
That's the point i'm making...Just because a specific case is difficult to prove with physical evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. The argument to the contrary is nonsense given how many women have watched the person who raped them go free because of rape laws and the legal requirements of proof.
What really surprises me is you haven't brought up the fact that one child was able to describe MJ's discoloured- white/black genitalia...I guess you really have to research your case against Jackson deeper.
So the fact that I haven't addressed a point means I didn't know about it?...Or is that you, once again, using a strawman?
Originally posted by Robtard
OJ's case is comparable, tis why it's used. Do you think OJ is really innocent, or he slipped by the court system?For instance?
It is comparable but not conclusive.
Originally posted by jaden101
Did you actually read anything I wrote?Your strawman argument of "so every man who does this is a sexual predator" is about the most obviously pathetic strawman in the history of these forums and that really is saying something.
What I said is these are known and documented behaviours of sexual predators that Michael Jackson exhibited towards children...None of those actions were vague and applied to Jackson. They were his documented either by video evidence or by testimony.
As for the forensic evidence...Again...did you actually read anything i posted or did you just read the 1st couple of lines and jump to a pathetically reactionary response?
Do all children in sexual abuse cases compain immediately after it happens or do some live with it for years and years?
It's massive circumstantial evidence of his potential sexual predator behaviour...But the case wasn't to prove whether he exhibited those traits or not...It was about specific cases for which physical evidence is extremely difficult to prove (not just in this case but in a huge amount of sexual abuse cases involving adults or children)
That's the point i'm making...Just because a specific case is difficult to prove with physical evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. The argument to the contrary is nonsense given how many women have watched the person who raped them go free because of rape laws and the legal requirements of proof.
So the fact that I haven't addressed a point means I didn't know about it?...Or is that you, once again, using a strawman?
You entire argument was based on stereotype not on evidence.
The burden of proof is on the accuser, where is the proof? There isn't any.
All you have managed to prove is that you would make a terrible lawyer. (Assuming you don't have a Lawyer mode to switch into that is).
Originally posted by jaden101
It's massive circumstantial evidence of his potential sexual predator behaviour...But the case wasn't to prove whether he exhibited those traits or not...It was about specific cases for which physical evidence is extremely difficult to prove (not just in this case but in a huge amount of sexual abuse cases involving adults or children)That's the point i'm making...Just because a specific case is difficult to prove with physical evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. The argument to the contrary is nonsense given how many women have watched the person who raped them go free because of rape laws and the legal requirements of proof.
It's actually not that massive. Since none of it directly implies child molestation in any logically sound way.
It doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it certainly doesn't mean that it did happen. I dunno if he did it or not, he may have. Or maybe he didn't. Nothing concrete either way. My point was simply that the evidence you provided wasn't enough to prove guilt, or even imply it, in any meaningful way.
You entire argument was based on stereotype not on evidence.
So forensic psychologist construct profiles that are based on stereotypes now do they?...This is their findings of behaviour patterns in child sex offenders...Not my opinions.
All you have managed to prove is that you would make a terrible lawyer. (Assuming you don't have a Lawyer mode to switch into that is).
You're the one who's showing your ignorance of circumstantial and corroborating evidence...Not me.
It is comparable but not conclusive.
Actually it's not really comparable at all...OJ was guilty...There physical evidence to show it. The police were just idiots and decided to strengthen their case by making up even more evidence. They didn't have to and he got away with it.
It's actually not that massive. Since none of it directly implies child molestation in any logically sound way.
Except for the part that I already mentioned that these behaviours are actions attributable to child sex offenders on each and every step.
Don't know about any of the males on here but how many non-child sex offenders on these boards exhibit these behaviours?
Lavishing other people's children with gifts?
Spending large amounts of time, unsupervised with other people's children in your own home?
(allegedly) Plying children with alcohol?
Sleeping with other people's children in the same bed?
I can't say i know of anyone who does these things. My guess is that very few of you, if not none of you, will know anyone who does these things.
The odd thing is, i'm not saying he did or didn't do it. I'm just countering the fact that you're all saying there's no proof he did it when the fact is that all those actions are considered corroborating evidence. It's the kind of evidence an expert witness would be brought in to explain his knowlege of child sex offenders behaviour compared with non child sex offender behaviour.
Originally posted by jaden101
I can't say i know of anyone who does these things. My guess is that very few of you, if not none of you, will know anyone who does these things.
I don't know any multi-millionaires who have been famous from such a young age, with abusive fathers, that they more or less had no childhood, though.
-AC
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is comparable but not conclusive.
And that was the original point, it's comparable.
I find it odd when people argue in MJ's defense from a 100% certainty point of view that he's innocent and that there isn't even a minutia of chance he did something improper and/or illegal with the child(ren). When they'd argue that OJ is likely guilty.
Originally posted by Robtard
And that was the original point, it's comparable.I find it odd when people argue in MJ's defense from a 100% certainty point of view that he's innocent and that there isn't even a minutia of chance he did something improper and/or illegal with the child(ren). When they'd argue that OJ is likely guilty.
The opposite is true, though.
If M.J. was found guilty on the same amount of evidence as there is now, nobody would say "He might be innocent.", nor would you I assume.
More people would gladly accept the decision of the justice system THEN.
He may have done it, but I do not believe he did for reasons stated, and that is not an unreasonable stance.
-AC
This touching trubute from Essex's finest:
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
This touching trubute from Essex's finest:
I don't think that's sh*t because they say he fiddled with kids.
I think it's sh*t because it perpetuates the myth and fact that Essex is populated by cannon fodder.
-AC
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
This touching trubute from Essex's finest:
Just watched/listened to that. Hahahaaa.
I do hope that cat is wearing a wig.
Love him or hate him, everybody has at least one Michael Jackson song that they like.
I was not a fan of his, but I liked a couple of his songs.
The day after he died was a sad time for me...all day long all the radio stations played his songs...I felt a little sad because listening to tracks like Human Nature and Billie Jean took me back to how it was living / growing up in the 80s. It was a much simpler time.
The 80s spawned many a great thing (music, toys, TV shows) and now that a major figure of the 80s has passed makes me feel sad, even though I did not like Michael Jackson.
R.I.P MJ.
Michael Jackson's death is ruled as a Homicide:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_en_ot/us_michael_jackson_investigation
By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press Writer Thomas Watkins, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 2 mins ago
LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles County coroner has ruled Michael Jackson's death a homicide, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press, a finding that makes it more likely criminal charges will be filed against the doctor who was with the pop star when he died.The coroner determined a fatal combination of drugs was given to Jackson hours before he died June 25 in his rented Los Angeles mansion, according to the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings have not been publicly released. Forensic tests found the powerful anesthetic propofol acted together with at least two sedatives to cause Jackson's death, the official said.
Dr. Conrad Murray, a Las Vegas cardiologist who became Jackson's personal physician weeks before his death, is the target of a manslaughter investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department. According to a search warrant affidavit unsealed Monday in Houston, Murray told investigators he administered a 25 mg dose of propofol around 10:40 a.m. after spending the night injecting Jackson with two sedatives in an unsuccessful attempt to get him to sleep.
The warrant, dated July 23, states that lethal levels of propofol were found in Jackson's system. Besides the propofol and two sedatives, the coroner's toxicology report found other substances in Jackson's system but they were not believed to have been a factor in the singer's death, the official said.
Murray has spoken to police and last week released a video saying he "told the truth and I have faith the truth will prevail." His attorney, Edward Chernoff, had no immediate comment but has previously said Murray never administered anything that "should have" killed Jackson.
A call to the coroner's office was not returned Monday.
Murray did not say anything about the drugs he gave to Jackson.