Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Michael Jackson PAID the settlement in 1993 - a common misconception explained
74 views
Skip to first unread message
TT
Oct 3, 2011, 11:41:29 AM10/3/11
to
Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been
completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
to this day – is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision
to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.
Before the Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, changed the
legislation in California that now prevents a civil case from preceding
a criminal one when the defendant is facing the same charges, the law in
1993 meant Jackson would have had to give his defense testimony in the
civil case before he testified in the subsequent criminal one.
Put simply, if the civil trial went ahead before the criminal one, the
prosecution would have had a front row seat to Jackson's defense
strategy. That would have left Jackson with only one option – invoking
the fifth amendment. That option, however, only works on paper. In
reality, in a trial where the charges involve something as emotive and
heinous as child abuse, a defendant who continually answers ‟I plead
the fifth your honor‟ isn't a trial. It's legally assisted suicide.
If Jackson's lawyers cared about winning the criminal trial, they had
stop the civil suit from preceding the criminal one. In the 2003-2005
case trial, police investigators, under Tom Sneddon's direction, notably
lifted defense documents clearly marked ‟Mesereau‟ (Jackson's attorney)
from the house of Jackson's then personal assistant, Evelyn Tavasci.
They also exceeded the scope of a search warrant to raid the office of
Bradley Miller, a private investigator working for one of Jackson's
lawyers at the time, thus violating attorney-client privilege. So the
prosecution were clearly not above tailoring the prosecution towards the
defense's case.
“Holding the civil trial in advance of a criminal trial ” journalist
Charles Thomson explains, “ would give the prosecution unqualified
access to Jackson's defense strategy. If Jackson cited an alibi in his
civil trial, Sneddon could go back to the office and change the dates on
the criminal charges. If Jackson called witnesses to corroborate his
version of events, Sneddon could go back to his office and mould his
case around their testimony. He could tailor his case exactly to the
defense strategy, making it impossible for Jackson to win a criminal
trial. The only way Jackson could guarantee himself a fair criminal
trial was to make the civil trial go away.”
Jackson‟s legal team: facing off a hostile press, continued hampering of
their efforts to defer the civil case, and a client who – as Bert Fields
told reporters in a press conference on November 12, when he
announced that Jackson was cancelling the remainder of his tour to enter
a clinic to treat a prescription drug addiction – was “barely able to
function adequately on an intellectual level,” were now themselves
splintering under the strain.
These tensions would come to a head less than two weeks later. Furious
with Fields for publicly revealing Jackson‟s mental state to the press,
attorney Howard Weitzman, the other „power‟ lawyer on the Jackson case,
would be even more incensed when Fields told a packed courtroom on
November 23, that a criminal indictment against Jackson looked likely.
Fields, mistakenly thinking this would convince the judge to hold off on
a date for the civil case, was later humiliated by Weitzman‟s public
correction of Field‟s statement. In the end, the judge refused the
defense‟s motion anyway and set a trial date of March 21, 1994.
Pellicano and Fields verbally resigned within days, finally leaving the
case in mid-December.
The irony of the abortive attempts by Jackson‟s lawyers to stop the
civil case from going ahead before the criminal one, was that Jackson
was nowhere close to being prosecuted. The August raids of Neverland
and Jackson‟s Century City apartment, and the November raid of the
Jackson‟s family home in Encino, had produced no physical evidence to
support charging, or even arresting Jackson.
In late November and October, the press made much of (leaked) reports
that police investigators had found a book at Neverland: ‟The boy: A
Photographic Essay,‟ which contained pictures of clothed and nude
children. In reality, the actual circumstances of this ‟find‟ were
completely innocent. Still in its original packaging, the inscription
inside the book read ‟To Michael:From your fan, Rhonda. Love xxxooo
Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.‟
The lack of corroborating evidence in the criminal case, was confirmed
by an officer from the LA Police Department, who told the LA Times in
1993 that “ no evidence (medical, photographic or video) could be
found that would support a criminal filing ” against Jackson. Despite
the use of intimidatory techniques (such as telling the children that
nude photos of them existed,) by the police when interviewing the 30 or
so children who had been guests at Neverland with their families over
the years – every one of them denied any abuse had occurred.
At one point, officers even resorted to asking Jackson‟s younger cousins
and nephews if they had ever been ‟abused‟ by their relative. Reduced to
following the ‟leads‟ the tabloids broke, investigators questioned the
Lemarques and the Quindoys (TT: ex-employees, fired for stealing). But
despite the stories these ex-employees had profited from selling, they
refused to go on record and accuse Jackson of molestation.
Retrospectively, in 2004, in an interview with News Press, former
members of the 1993 grand jury in Santa Barbara, said they were never
shown enough evidence to issue an indictment against Jackson. Their
statements support the comments made by Thomas Mesereau. On November 29,
2005, in front of a mixed audience of legal commentators,
undergraduates, post-graduates and reporters at Harvard University,
Mesereau said, “[Sneddon] had convened a grand jury in the early 90‟s to
try and get an indictment and he failed.
The grand jury met for approximately 6 months and would not charge
Michael Jackson with anything. And I have since spoken to someone who
was on that grand jury quite recently from Los Angeles. She was on a
Los Angeles grand jury that was convened at the same time. And they had
real problems with these accusations. And [the] real problems were the
sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by
generating these charges.”
During this question and answer session, Mesereau also revealed that had
Jordan Chandler come forward to testify in the 2005 trial, that he
[Mesrereau] had witnesses prepared to testify that Jordan had told them
that the reasons behind his decision to file for legal emancipation from
his parents, were due to Jordan‟s anger and resentment at being forced
to lie about Jackson. Mesereau further stated that he had been ready
to call witnesses who could corroborate that Jordan had told them many
times over the years that Jackson had never molested him, and that the
accusations had simply been about Evan‟s desire for money.
In November „93, however, the media were still dedicating over 65% of
their coverage to the Jackson story. And despite the slow progress of
the criminal investigation, it was the civil case with its
considerably lower onus of proof, and the fact that Jackson could be
forced to plead the fifth, that was applying the pressure to Jackson‟s
legal team.
[SNIP]
The most important part of the settlement agreement, from Jackson‟s
perspective, was the key clause of non-admission of liability. This
clause was as adamant – and as clear, as Jackson could get in this
agreement to stating that he was not guilty of the criminal accusation.
Jackson‟s legal team specifically negotiated the inclusion of this
clause, and only when this clause was agreed – did Jackson sign on to
the agreement.
The fact that this was agreed to by the Chandlers, is astonishing in as
far as it perhaps most clearly reveals Evan Chandler‟s (and June‟s – who
also stood to gain financially) intentions. For most parents of a child
who had allegedly been ‟molested‟ – this is the one clause that would
be unacceptable.
The other key point in this agreement, is that nowhere in it are the
Chandlers‟ rights to pursue a criminal case affected. This fact, was
reflected in a report carried in USA Today on January 28, 1994, three
days after the settlement agreement was announced. Every other media
outlet at the time reported the same.
“The boy‟s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy‟s
lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in
a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against
his will.”
[SNIP]
Yet, they never did (testify). That the family subsequently refused to
testify was their own decision, and one that was made entirely
independently of the civil suit settlement. The settlement only resolved
the civil case, not the criminal case, which staggered on for another
eight months, finally closing in September ‟94.
***
...I've been arguing with 2 self-proclaimed lawyers of RST about Jackson
case...and the other one even claimed she was an expert with Jackson
cases - yet she clearly didn't understand fundamental legal reason why
the settlement was paid.
Well, at least it should be clear now. Of course I recommend reading the
whole article which I quoted in my post, it's rather long though:
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf
Thanks for reading and sorry for being off-topic,
TT
completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
to this day – is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision
to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.
Before the Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, changed the
legislation in California that now prevents a civil case from preceding
a criminal one when the defendant is facing the same charges, the law in
1993 meant Jackson would have had to give his defense testimony in the
civil case before he testified in the subsequent criminal one.
Put simply, if the civil trial went ahead before the criminal one, the
prosecution would have had a front row seat to Jackson's defense
strategy. That would have left Jackson with only one option – invoking
the fifth amendment. That option, however, only works on paper. In
reality, in a trial where the charges involve something as emotive and
heinous as child abuse, a defendant who continually answers ‟I plead
the fifth your honor‟ isn't a trial. It's legally assisted suicide.
If Jackson's lawyers cared about winning the criminal trial, they had
stop the civil suit from preceding the criminal one. In the 2003-2005
case trial, police investigators, under Tom Sneddon's direction, notably
lifted defense documents clearly marked ‟Mesereau‟ (Jackson's attorney)
from the house of Jackson's then personal assistant, Evelyn Tavasci.
They also exceeded the scope of a search warrant to raid the office of
Bradley Miller, a private investigator working for one of Jackson's
lawyers at the time, thus violating attorney-client privilege. So the
prosecution were clearly not above tailoring the prosecution towards the
defense's case.
“Holding the civil trial in advance of a criminal trial ” journalist
Charles Thomson explains, “ would give the prosecution unqualified
access to Jackson's defense strategy. If Jackson cited an alibi in his
civil trial, Sneddon could go back to the office and change the dates on
the criminal charges. If Jackson called witnesses to corroborate his
version of events, Sneddon could go back to his office and mould his
case around their testimony. He could tailor his case exactly to the
defense strategy, making it impossible for Jackson to win a criminal
trial. The only way Jackson could guarantee himself a fair criminal
trial was to make the civil trial go away.”
Jackson‟s legal team: facing off a hostile press, continued hampering of
their efforts to defer the civil case, and a client who – as Bert Fields
told reporters in a press conference on November 12, when he
announced that Jackson was cancelling the remainder of his tour to enter
a clinic to treat a prescription drug addiction – was “barely able to
function adequately on an intellectual level,” were now themselves
splintering under the strain.
These tensions would come to a head less than two weeks later. Furious
with Fields for publicly revealing Jackson‟s mental state to the press,
attorney Howard Weitzman, the other „power‟ lawyer on the Jackson case,
would be even more incensed when Fields told a packed courtroom on
November 23, that a criminal indictment against Jackson looked likely.
Fields, mistakenly thinking this would convince the judge to hold off on
a date for the civil case, was later humiliated by Weitzman‟s public
correction of Field‟s statement. In the end, the judge refused the
defense‟s motion anyway and set a trial date of March 21, 1994.
Pellicano and Fields verbally resigned within days, finally leaving the
case in mid-December.
The irony of the abortive attempts by Jackson‟s lawyers to stop the
civil case from going ahead before the criminal one, was that Jackson
was nowhere close to being prosecuted. The August raids of Neverland
and Jackson‟s Century City apartment, and the November raid of the
Jackson‟s family home in Encino, had produced no physical evidence to
support charging, or even arresting Jackson.
In late November and October, the press made much of (leaked) reports
that police investigators had found a book at Neverland: ‟The boy: A
Photographic Essay,‟ which contained pictures of clothed and nude
children. In reality, the actual circumstances of this ‟find‟ were
completely innocent. Still in its original packaging, the inscription
inside the book read ‟To Michael:From your fan, Rhonda. Love xxxooo
Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.‟
The lack of corroborating evidence in the criminal case, was confirmed
by an officer from the LA Police Department, who told the LA Times in
1993 that “ no evidence (medical, photographic or video) could be
found that would support a criminal filing ” against Jackson. Despite
the use of intimidatory techniques (such as telling the children that
nude photos of them existed,) by the police when interviewing the 30 or
so children who had been guests at Neverland with their families over
the years – every one of them denied any abuse had occurred.
At one point, officers even resorted to asking Jackson‟s younger cousins
and nephews if they had ever been ‟abused‟ by their relative. Reduced to
following the ‟leads‟ the tabloids broke, investigators questioned the
Lemarques and the Quindoys (TT: ex-employees, fired for stealing). But
despite the stories these ex-employees had profited from selling, they
refused to go on record and accuse Jackson of molestation.
Retrospectively, in 2004, in an interview with News Press, former
members of the 1993 grand jury in Santa Barbara, said they were never
shown enough evidence to issue an indictment against Jackson. Their
statements support the comments made by Thomas Mesereau. On November 29,
2005, in front of a mixed audience of legal commentators,
undergraduates, post-graduates and reporters at Harvard University,
Mesereau said, “[Sneddon] had convened a grand jury in the early 90‟s to
try and get an indictment and he failed.
The grand jury met for approximately 6 months and would not charge
Michael Jackson with anything. And I have since spoken to someone who
was on that grand jury quite recently from Los Angeles. She was on a
Los Angeles grand jury that was convened at the same time. And they had
real problems with these accusations. And [the] real problems were the
sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by
generating these charges.”
During this question and answer session, Mesereau also revealed that had
Jordan Chandler come forward to testify in the 2005 trial, that he
[Mesrereau] had witnesses prepared to testify that Jordan had told them
that the reasons behind his decision to file for legal emancipation from
his parents, were due to Jordan‟s anger and resentment at being forced
to lie about Jackson. Mesereau further stated that he had been ready
to call witnesses who could corroborate that Jordan had told them many
times over the years that Jackson had never molested him, and that the
accusations had simply been about Evan‟s desire for money.
In November „93, however, the media were still dedicating over 65% of
their coverage to the Jackson story. And despite the slow progress of
the criminal investigation, it was the civil case with its
considerably lower onus of proof, and the fact that Jackson could be
forced to plead the fifth, that was applying the pressure to Jackson‟s
legal team.
[SNIP]
The most important part of the settlement agreement, from Jackson‟s
perspective, was the key clause of non-admission of liability. This
clause was as adamant – and as clear, as Jackson could get in this
agreement to stating that he was not guilty of the criminal accusation.
Jackson‟s legal team specifically negotiated the inclusion of this
clause, and only when this clause was agreed – did Jackson sign on to
the agreement.
The fact that this was agreed to by the Chandlers, is astonishing in as
far as it perhaps most clearly reveals Evan Chandler‟s (and June‟s – who
also stood to gain financially) intentions. For most parents of a child
who had allegedly been ‟molested‟ – this is the one clause that would
be unacceptable.
The other key point in this agreement, is that nowhere in it are the
Chandlers‟ rights to pursue a criminal case affected. This fact, was
reflected in a report carried in USA Today on January 28, 1994, three
days after the settlement agreement was announced. Every other media
outlet at the time reported the same.
“The boy‟s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy‟s
lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in
a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against
his will.”
[SNIP]
Yet, they never did (testify). That the family subsequently refused to
testify was their own decision, and one that was made entirely
independently of the civil suit settlement. The settlement only resolved
the civil case, not the criminal case, which staggered on for another
eight months, finally closing in September ‟94.
***
...I've been arguing with 2 self-proclaimed lawyers of RST about Jackson
case...and the other one even claimed she was an expert with Jackson
cases - yet she clearly didn't understand fundamental legal reason why
the settlement was paid.
Well, at least it should be clear now. Of course I recommend reading the
whole article which I quoted in my post, it's rather long though:
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf
Thanks for reading and sorry for being off-topic,
TT
felangey
Oct 3, 2011, 12:23:34 PM10/3/11
to
Patrick Kehoe
Oct 3, 2011, 12:36:04 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 8:41 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been
> completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
> observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
> can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
> pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
> the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
> what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
> to this day – is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision
> to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.
Who really cares... Michael Jackson? That's a big, whatever...
> Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been
> completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
> observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
> can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
> pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
> the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
> what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
> to this day – is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision
> to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.
P
TT
Oct 3, 2011, 1:42:49 PM10/3/11
to
subject generates pretty interesting debates...
Please continue discussing Nadal, Federer and Sampras. :)
But remember: There are still tickets left for ATP World Tour Finals at
O2 Arena - While 50 year old Michael Jackson sold 50 concerts in few
hours...that should be around 1,150,000 tickets. Jesus.
Madara0806
Oct 3, 2011, 3:58:08 PM10/3/11
to
TT
Oct 3, 2011, 4:05:32 PM10/3/11
to
TT
Oct 3, 2011, 4:11:43 PM10/3/11
to
in "This is it (2009)" -thread. Court1 felt that my comments on the film
needed additional discussion about MJ's drug use and molestation for
some odd reason.
Anyway, I already apologized for posting this. Can't do better than that. :)
Howard Brazee
Oct 3, 2011, 5:43:31 PM10/3/11
to
On Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:42:49 +0300, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>Well, Jackson is as good a subject as any. In fact it appears that the
>subject generates pretty interesting debates...
For various values of "interesting". Maybe because I'm old enough
>Well, Jackson is as good a subject as any. In fact it appears that the
>subject generates pretty interesting debates...
that I still think of him as the kid in the Jackson Five.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Court_1
Oct 3, 2011, 11:47:33 PM10/3/11
to
On Oct 3, 11:41 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been
> completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
> observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
> can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
> pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
> the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
> what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
> to this day - is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision
> Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been
> completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
> observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
> can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
> pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
> the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
> what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
> to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.
>
> Before the Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, changed the
> legislation in California that now prevents a civil case from preceding
> a criminal one when the defendant is facing the same charges, the law in
> 1993 meant Jackson would have had to give his defense testimony in the
> civil case before he testified in the subsequent criminal one.
>
> Put simply, if the civil trial went ahead before the criminal one, the
> prosecution would have had a front row seat to Jackson's defense
> strategy. That would have left Jackson with only one option - invoking
>
> Before the Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, changed the
> legislation in California that now prevents a civil case from preceding
> a criminal one when the defendant is facing the same charges, the law in
> 1993 meant Jackson would have had to give his defense testimony in the
> civil case before he testified in the subsequent criminal one.
>
> Put simply, if the civil trial went ahead before the criminal one, the
> prosecution would have had a front row seat to Jackson's defense
> told reporters in a press conference on November 12, when he
> announced that Jackson was cancelling the remainder of his tour to enter
> a clinic to treat a prescription drug addiction - was "barely able to
> announced that Jackson was cancelling the remainder of his tour to enter
>
> The lack of corroborating evidence in the criminal case, was confirmed
> by an officer from the LA Police Department, who told the LA Times in
> 1993 that " no evidence (medical, photographic or video) could be
> found that would support a criminal filing " against Jackson. Despite
> the use of intimidatory techniques (such as telling the children that
> nude photos of them existed,) by the police when interviewing the 30 or
> so children who had been guests at Neverland with their families over
> the years - every one of them denied any abuse had occurred.
> The lack of corroborating evidence in the criminal case, was confirmed
> by an officer from the LA Police Department, who told the LA Times in
> 1993 that " no evidence (medical, photographic or video) could be
> found that would support a criminal filing " against Jackson. Despite
> the use of intimidatory techniques (such as telling the children that
> nude photos of them existed,) by the police when interviewing the 30 or
> so children who had been guests at Neverland with their families over
> agreement to stating that he was not guilty of the criminal accusation.
> Jackson"s legal team specifically negotiated the inclusion of this
> clause, and only when this clause was agreed - did Jackson sign on to
> Jackson"s legal team specifically negotiated the inclusion of this
> the agreement.
>
> The fact that this was agreed to by the Chandlers, is astonishing in as
> far as it perhaps most clearly reveals Evan Chandler"s (and June"s - who
>
> The fact that this was agreed to by the Chandlers, is astonishing in as
> also stood to gain financially) intentions. For most parents of a child
> who had allegedly been "molested" - this is the one clause that would
> be unacceptable.
>
> The other key point in this agreement, is that nowhere in it are the
> Chandlers" rights to pursue a criminal case affected. This fact, was
> reflected in a report carried in USA Today on January 28, 1994, three
> days after the settlement agreement was announced. Every other media
> outlet at the time reported the same.
>
> "The boy"s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy"s
> lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in
> a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against
> his will."
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Yet, they never did (testify). That the family subsequently refused to
> testify was their own decision, and one that was made entirely
> independently of the civil suit settlement. The settlement only resolved
> the civil case, not the criminal case, which staggered on for another
> eight months, finally closing in September "94.
>
> ***
>
> ...I've been arguing with 2 self-proclaimed lawyers of RST about Jackson
> case...and the other one even claimed she was an expert with Jackson
> cases - yet she clearly didn't understand fundamental legal reason why
> the settlement was paid.
>
I am perfectly aware of these "legal reasons." Does not change my
>
> The other key point in this agreement, is that nowhere in it are the
> Chandlers" rights to pursue a criminal case affected. This fact, was
> reflected in a report carried in USA Today on January 28, 1994, three
> days after the settlement agreement was announced. Every other media
> outlet at the time reported the same.
>
> "The boy"s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy"s
> lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in
> a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against
> his will."
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Yet, they never did (testify). That the family subsequently refused to
> testify was their own decision, and one that was made entirely
> independently of the civil suit settlement. The settlement only resolved
> the civil case, not the criminal case, which staggered on for another
> eight months, finally closing in September "94.
>
> ***
>
> ...I've been arguing with 2 self-proclaimed lawyers of RST about Jackson
> case...and the other one even claimed she was an expert with Jackson
> cases - yet she clearly didn't understand fundamental legal reason why
> the settlement was paid.
>
opinon one bit.
You are seriously psychotically obsessed with MJ. A guy who is
unreasonably obsessed with Nadal and MJ? You have to have homoerotic
tendencies if you are indeed a man. I mean listen to you and how you
are trying desperately to try and make people believe MJ was some kind
of paragon of virtue.
TT
Oct 4, 2011, 12:16:23 AM10/4/11
to
4.10.2011 6:47, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> I am perfectly aware of these "legal reasons." Does not change my
> opinon one bit.
Liar.
> I am perfectly aware of these "legal reasons." Does not change my
> opinon one bit.
You did refer to Jackson "paying off" these charges...and in addition
provided links where the writers clearly did not understand why the
settlement was made. Thus you did not understand the concept why these
settlements were made...or you were being dishonest about it. Which one
is it?
Your links were full of misinformation and clearly you don't know much
about these cases or you're not able to differentiate between truth and
fancy headlines.
I don't blame you for not knowing these things and misinformation you
read, the media is mostly to blame.
But don't come telling me you understood the legal dance behind these
settlements or that somehow you're very informed about all things to MJ.
Because clearly you are not.
Iceberg
Oct 4, 2011, 7:01:59 AM10/4/11
to
she's read some newspaper headlines saying that.
Iceberg
Oct 4, 2011, 7:05:11 AM10/4/11
to
it out of control about the poor guy.
unklbob
Oct 4, 2011, 7:10:24 AM10/4/11
to
Dude was a freakshow, posthumous attempts at rehibilitation/
revisionism notwithstanding.
drew
Oct 4, 2011, 11:58:43 AM10/4/11
to
On Oct 3, 11:41 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been
> completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
> observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
> can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
> pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
> the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
> what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
> to this day – is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision
> to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.
Unless you have ever been wrongly accused you may not have any time
> Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been
> completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but
> observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people
> can't get past when judging the events of 1993, is why Jackson chose to
> pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting
> the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid of
> what the boy (Jordan Chandler) would say. This assumption, widely held
> to this day – is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision
> to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.
for
this stuff. You probably believe the cops are always the good guys.
And unless you have had the misfortune of being misquoted in the
press, you
probably believe most of what you read.
I don't know if MJ was guilty or not. But if he was innocent he
suffered
greatly for the damage to his reputation.
Rest in peace either way. You didn't get any on this earth.
Gracchus
Oct 5, 2011, 12:51:44 AM10/5/11
to
On Oct 4, 11:58 pm, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> I don't know if MJ was guilty or not. But if he was innocent he
> suffered
> greatly for the damage to his reputation.
One would think that if an innocent man got burned this way, he would
> I don't know if MJ was guilty or not. But if he was innocent he
> suffered
> greatly for the damage to his reputation.
do all he could afterward to avoid any behavior with children that
could be misconstrued. Instead, he continued getting into bed with
little boys, but only with "sweet," harmless intentions. If Michael
truly was innocent, then he must have also been quite stupid.
Court_1
Oct 6, 2011, 12:25:42 AM10/6/11
to
at some of his nutty fans who actually believed every word he spoke as
the gospel! He was able to get away with all of it because he was
Michael Jackson.
Court_1
Oct 6, 2011, 12:32:15 AM10/6/11
to
of the molestation cases and have read everything there is to read
about them and understand more than you do so fuck off. Yes, I think
he was guilty of child molestation. End of story. Who knew opinions
were not allowed on RST. Is your opinion the only one that matters?
Maybe in your own mind, but not mine. I don't listen to people who are
hero-worshipping fools and believe everything that they read in the
media. Do you actually hear or listen to yourself and how foolish you
sound?
Court_1
Oct 6, 2011, 12:27:36 AM10/6/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you could read, which I doubt you actually can, you would see from
my prior posts that I have said I was an MJ fan and have read almost
everything there is to read about him in the last 20 years, so NO I
did not come to my decision lightly or by just reading newspaper
headlines jackass. Learn to read and comprehend!
Gracchus
Oct 6, 2011, 9:58:00 AM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 12:32 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you actually hear or listen to yourself and how foolish you
> sound?
C1, you present something of a conundrum here. This is the half-wit
> Do you actually hear or listen to yourself and how foolish you
> sound?
Finn you are talking to. If he were capable of such self-awareness, he
would not be a half-wit, and thus you would never need to ask the
question.
Rodjk #613
Oct 6, 2011, 10:00:35 AM10/6/11
to
TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
off his accuser because he was guilty...
Rodjk #613
TT
Oct 6, 2011, 4:15:01 PM10/6/11
to
6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
> off his accuser because he was guilty...
Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
> off his accuser because he was guilty...
explain it to you as simply as I can.
1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
(otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
case - before the actual criminal case)
2. Paying the settlement did not affect criminal case, the boy could
still have testified - which he did not
3. I didn't even take position on this thread whether Jackson was guilty
or not so your comment is absurd. The point of this thread was that
paying the settlement doesn't prove guilt (or innocence).
Now if you understand above then I'm sure everyone does.
TT
Oct 6, 2011, 4:16:43 PM10/6/11
to
TT
Oct 6, 2011, 4:21:52 PM10/6/11
to
based on tabloids. Or even worse, making up things yourself, such as
Michael being a child sex-slave.
Rodjk #613
Oct 6, 2011, 9:43:01 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>
> > TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
> > off his accuser because he was guilty...
>
> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
> explain it to you as simply as I can.
You did, and you were wrong.
> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>
> > TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
> > off his accuser because he was guilty...
>
> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
> explain it to you as simply as I can.
> 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
> (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
> case - before the actual criminal case)
>
> 2. Paying the settlement did not affect criminal case, the boy could
> still have testified - which he did not
>
> 3. I didn't even take position on this thread whether Jackson was guilty
> or not so your comment is absurd. The point of this thread was that
> paying the settlement doesn't prove guilt (or innocence).
>
> Now if you understand above then I'm sure everyone does.
not me...
Rodjk #613
Gracchus
Oct 7, 2011, 1:12:27 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 7, 9:43 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
Correct. He could have had a courtroom dream team better than O.J.'s.
> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
At the time this all was happening, Elton John was asked what he would
do in Michael Jackson's position: "If I were innocent, I would never
settle....IF I were innocent," he stressed. And this was from a friend
of Michael's.
TT
Oct 7, 2011, 3:35:32 AM10/7/11
to
7.10.2011 4:43, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
>>> off his accuser because he was guilty...
>>
>> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
>> explain it to you as simply as I can.
>
> You did, and you were wrong.
>
>> 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
>> (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
>> case - before the actual criminal case)
>
> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>
> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
>>> off his accuser because he was guilty...
>>
>> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
>> explain it to you as simply as I can.
>
> You did, and you were wrong.
>
>> 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
>> (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
>> case - before the actual criminal case)
>
> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>
Naivety.
Looks like you refuse to understand. Settlement only proves that there
was a flaw in legal system.
>>
>> 2. Paying the settlement did not affect criminal case, the boy could
>> still have testified - which he did not
>
> Or he was paid not to...
>
Perhaps, but the boy could still have testified, the settlement didn't
prohibit that.
It wasn't the boy making those allegations in first place, it was his
greedy father. It actually took time and dental drug to get the boy
cooperate with his father.
After the case boy cut connections with his father. His father shot
himself shortly after Jackson's death.
TT
Oct 7, 2011, 4:34:39 AM10/7/11
to
7.10.2011 8:12, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> On Oct 7, 9:43 am, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>
> Correct. He could have had a courtroom dream team better than O.J.'s.
>
> On Oct 7, 9:43 am, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>
> Correct. He could have had a courtroom dream team better than O.J.'s.
>
Appears that you dumb fuck didn't understand anything about the initial
article.
Anyway... Jackson had a strong case, and he asked his legal team if they
can assure winning the case...they answered they couldn't. It's not easy
to prove something didn't happen.
> At the time this all was happening, Elton John was asked what he would
> do in Michael Jackson's position: "If I were innocent, I would never
> settle....IF I were innocent," he stressed. And this was from a friend
> of Michael's.
>
What does Elton John have to do with this?
I myself have always said that he shouldn't have settled. But that was
before I fully understood the legal dance.
Maybe he shouldn't have settled anyway. But it's damn easy to say that
in retrospect. There are positives and negatives on both options.
Anyway, when the law changed he didn't settle and won easily on court,
in 2005. And was STILL crucified by the press.
Court_1
Oct 9, 2011, 3:59:04 AM10/9/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
THAT is the best you can do? Try harder.
Court_1
Oct 9, 2011, 4:01:44 AM10/9/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I knew exactly why the settlement was made so will you please stop
your nonsense. I am not basing my opinons based on tabloids but you
keep on going repeating that lie over and over if it makes you feel
any better. All I know is I would not let me kid anywhere near MJ if
MJ were still alive and all your blabbering would not change that
fact.
TT
Oct 9, 2011, 4:20:33 AM10/9/11
to
debater.
We have observed that you didn't know why the settlement was made and
that you base your opinions on tabloids. In addition you invent stuff
such as child-sex-slave-gate.
Court_1
Oct 9, 2011, 4:06:36 AM10/9/11
to
On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> > 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>
> > > TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
> > > off his accuser because he was guilty...
>
> > Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
> > explain it to you as simply as I can.
>
> You did, and you were wrong.
>
> > 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
> > (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
> > case - before the actual criminal case)
>
> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>
>
>
Exactly, and only a MJ sycophant could possibly think otherwise. Plus
> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> > 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>
> > > TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
> > > off his accuser because he was guilty...
>
> > Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
> > explain it to you as simply as I can.
>
> You did, and you were wrong.
>
> > 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
> > (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
> > case - before the actual criminal case)
>
> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>
>
>
MJ must have been the most unlucky wealthy and famous person on the
planet to have not just one child accuse him of child molestation and
supposedly try to extort money but he had several over a span of 30
years. Some unlucky guy that MJ! (sarcasm)
TT
Oct 9, 2011, 4:24:10 AM10/9/11
to
9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>>
>>>> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
>>>> off his accuser because he was guilty...
>>
>>> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
>>> explain it to you as simply as I can.
>>
>> You did, and you were wrong.
>>
>>> 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
>>> (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
>>> case - before the actual criminal case)
>>
>> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>>
>>
>>
> Exactly,
> On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>>
>>>> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
>>>> off his accuser because he was guilty...
>>
>>> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
>>> explain it to you as simply as I can.
>>
>> You did, and you were wrong.
>>
>>> 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
>>> (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
>>> case - before the actual criminal case)
>>
>> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>>
>>
>>
> Exactly,
Ah. So posting factual articles changes nothing. Just as expected from
you my dear.
TT
Oct 9, 2011, 4:34:47 AM10/9/11
to
9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Exactly, and only a MJ sycophant could possibly think otherwise.
Pretty weak argument since I have argued facts while you have made up
claims(Michael was sold as child sex slave to studio execs) and trusted
on tabloids (links you posted).
Court_1
Oct 10, 2011, 10:38:27 AM10/10/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
And what "factual" articles or links have you produced to prove MJ's
innocence? I will answer for you: NONE.
Either way we both have opinions on the matter and that is all. Our
opinions will not change the course of MJ's life(or death in this
case) or the results of his court cases, etc.
Court_1
Oct 10, 2011, 10:44:43 AM10/10/11
to
You have done no such thing--i.e. argue FACTS. You have merely
presented your opinion just as I have based on the documents and
articles we have read. We just interpret the facts differently.
Personally I don't see how anybody after looking at all of the
documents and evidence in his case can come to the conclusion that he
was innocent. Even many people on the jury for his criminal trial
stated that they did not necessarily think he was innocent but that
they could not convict him based on the strict guideleines that were
given in the jury instructions.There were many news programs on after
the criminal trial where jurors spoke out about this. I guess you
missed that as well. Again lesson for today, when a jury finds
somebody not guilty it does not mean they are innocent. ;)
Court_1
Oct 10, 2011, 10:49:58 AM10/10/11
to
:)
TT
Oct 10, 2011, 1:23:03 PM10/10/11
to
10.10.2011 17:44, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 9, 4:34 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Exactly, and only a MJ sycophant could possibly think otherwise.
>>
>> Pretty weak argument since I have argued facts while you have made up
>> claims(Michael was sold as child sex slave to studio execs) and trusted
>> on tabloids (links you posted).
>
> You have done no such thing--i.e. argue FACTS. You have merely
> presented your opinion just as I have based on the documents and
> articles we have read. We just interpret the facts differently.
> Personally I don't see how anybody after looking at all of the
> documents and evidence in his case can come to the conclusion that he
> was innocent. Even many people on the jury for his criminal trial
> stated that they did not necessarily think he was innocent but that
> they could not convict him based on the strict guideleines that were
> given in the jury instructions.
> On Oct 9, 4:34 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> Exactly, and only a MJ sycophant could possibly think otherwise.
>>
>> Pretty weak argument since I have argued facts while you have made up
>> claims(Michael was sold as child sex slave to studio execs) and trusted
>> on tabloids (links you posted).
>
> You have done no such thing--i.e. argue FACTS. You have merely
> presented your opinion just as I have based on the documents and
> articles we have read. We just interpret the facts differently.
> Personally I don't see how anybody after looking at all of the
> documents and evidence in his case can come to the conclusion that he
> was innocent. Even many people on the jury for his criminal trial
> stated that they did not necessarily think he was innocent but that
> they could not convict him based on the strict guideleines that were
> given in the jury instructions.
links?
> There were many news programs on after
> the criminal trial where jurors spoke out about this.
What they said was that "you didn't hear what we did" - aka that
reporters' opinion (of guilt) is misinformed.
TT
Oct 10, 2011, 1:25:43 PM10/10/11
to
10.10.2011 17:38, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 9, 4:24 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>>> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
>>>>>> off his accuser because he was guilty...
>>
>>>>> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
>>>>> explain it to you as simply as I can.
>>
>>>> You did, and you were wrong.
>>
>>>>> 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
>>>>> (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
>>>>> case - before the actual criminal case)
>>
>>>> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>>
>>> Exactly,
>>
>> Ah. So posting factual articles changes nothing. Just as expected from
>> you my dear.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And what "factual" articles or links have you produced to prove MJ's
> innocence?
> On Oct 9, 4:24 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Rodjk #613"<rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 3:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 6.10.2011 17:00, Rodjk #613 kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>>> TT leaves out the very real possibility/likelihood that Jackson paid
>>>>>> off his accuser because he was guilty...
>>
>>>>> Apparently you didn't understand my initial post. So let me try and
>>>>> explain it to you as simply as I can.
>>
>>>> You did, and you were wrong.
>>
>>>>> 1. Jackson HAD TO pay the settlement - WHETHER he was innocent or guilty
>>>>> (otherwise he would have given away his defence strategy during civil
>>>>> case - before the actual criminal case)
>>
>>>> If he was innocent, he would have no issue with his defense.
>>
>>> Exactly,
>>
>> Ah. So posting factual articles changes nothing. Just as expected from
>> you my dear.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And what "factual" articles or links have you produced to prove MJ's
> innocence?
In this thread:
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf
Court_1
Oct 12, 2011, 8:51:57 AM10/12/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, that is not what I actually heard when I watched some news program
> - Show quoted text -
after the criminal trial. One of the news network shows at the time
had a program where they talked to the jury members and many said that
while they did not think MJ was necessarily innocent they could not
convict him under the stringent jury instructions that were given to
them. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Gracchus
Oct 12, 2011, 9:45:35 AM10/12/11
to
On Oct 12, 8:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, that is not what I actually heard when I watched some news program
> after the criminal trial. One of the news network shows at the time
> had a program where they talked to the jury members and many said that
> while they did not think MJ was necessarily innocent they could not
> convict him under the stringent jury instructions that were given to
> them. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
For anyone who has served on a jury, this is not surprising. You are
> No, that is not what I actually heard when I watched some news program
> after the criminal trial. One of the news network shows at the time
> had a program where they talked to the jury members and many said that
> while they did not think MJ was necessarily innocent they could not
> convict him under the stringent jury instructions that were given to
> them. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
supposed to follow the instructions to the letter when casting your
vote, and the *legal* standard for "reasonable doubt" sometimes
dictates a decision you disagree with. Any thinking person knows that
MJ was a pedophile. Who can honestly say that they would give the same
benefit of the doubt to an ordinary citizen (even a rich one) who
behaved the way with children that Jackson did? Only a naive person or
one blinded by celebrity could remain oblivious to how enormously
creepy it was.
TT
Oct 12, 2011, 10:05:02 AM10/12/11
to
there was none evidence against MJ and lots of evidence towards
kid+family making up stuff, contradicting statements, poor logic and
greed. Defence couldn't have had stronger case.
Court_1
Oct 13, 2011, 7:04:01 AM10/13/11
to
On Oct 12, 9:45 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, that is not what I actually heard when I watched some news program
> > after the criminal trial. One of the news network shows at the time
> > had a program where they talked to the jury members and many said that
> > while they did not think MJ was necessarily innocent they could not
> > convict him under the stringent jury instructions that were given to
> > them. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
>
> On Oct 12, 8:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, that is not what I actually heard when I watched some news program
> > after the criminal trial. One of the news network shows at the time
> > had a program where they talked to the jury members and many said that
> > while they did not think MJ was necessarily innocent they could not
> > convict him under the stringent jury instructions that were given to
> > them. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
>
> Any thinking person knows that MJ was a pedophile. Who can honestly say that they would give the same
> benefit of the doubt to an ordinary citizen (even a rich one) who
> behaved the way with children that Jackson did? Only a naive person or
> one blinded by celebrity could remain oblivious to how enormously
> creepy it was.
> benefit of the doubt to an ordinary citizen (even a rich one) who
> behaved the way with children that Jackson did? Only a naive person or
> one blinded by celebrity could remain oblivious to how enormously
> creepy it was.
I am with you 100%. it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
person could possibly think MJ was some sort of innocent victim. He
was a predator who was protected by his money and superstar status. It
is so patently obvious it is ridiculous.
Court_1
Oct 13, 2011, 7:09:15 AM10/13/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you telling me that I did not watch and hear the jurors state what
I have said above in a news program after the criminal trial? I guess
I just conjured it all up then. (rolls eyes!) Stop being such a MJ
parasite. He is dead so why are you so concerned about being a hero
worshipper now? Continue your worship of Nadal. At least he is alive
and is not some sort of creepy child predator(or at least as far as we
know.)
TT
Oct 13, 2011, 10:06:22 AM10/13/11
to
Yes.
TT
Oct 13, 2011, 10:09:44 AM10/13/11
to
13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
> person could possibly think
> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
> person could possibly think
"There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
Court_1
Oct 13, 2011, 11:36:25 AM10/13/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then you are dumber than I thought previously. There were jury members
on the MJ criminal case who came out later and said that they did not
think MJ was totally innocent but they could not convict him beyond a
reasonable doubt based on the evidence.
http://www.mjfacts.info/jurors.php
Some of the jurors appeared on news programs such as CNN after the
trial and specifically said that the not guilty verdict did not equate
to their beliefs that MJ was totally innocent. There were members of
the jury who did not feel he was innocent and that he had molested
children.
KING: Was there more than one? That wanted a conviction on maybe one
of the counts?
COOK: There were a couple of things that I wanted -- I can't even
remember them now to be honest with you, without my notes and paper
here in front of me. But there was a couple of things that I thought
that he was guilty of, but we couldn't prove it. And so we had to go
with not being able to prove it; we had no choice.
KING: We had some -- two people, different people tell us they thought
he was a predator, but that was not proven in this case.
COOK: Exactly.
Court_1
Oct 13, 2011, 11:51:14 AM10/13/11
to
Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
"There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
"very important business people," would meet late at night in our
hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
"I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
be sick for days after these "meetings."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_Qi0oxpmkX056xSZbouwY8N
Now shut up! I told you I had read some place about the possibility of
MJ's dad lending him out to sexual predators in the entertainment
business and I told you I thought it was Jermaine who said it. Above
is proof. Now that does not mean that I believe what Jermaine (a
nutcase himself it seems) said for sure, but I told you that I have
read it before. I have read it over the years multiple times by
multiple sources. Is it true? I could not tell you.
TT
Oct 14, 2011, 7:14:53 PM10/14/11
to
13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
>>> person could possibly think
>>
>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
>>
>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
>
>
> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
>
> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
>
> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
> be sick for days after these "meetings."
>
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_Qi0oxpmkX056xSZbouwY8N
>
Ok, so you're not an outright liar. Good.
> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
>>> person could possibly think
>>
>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
>>
>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
>
>
> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
>
> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
>
> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
> be sick for days after these "meetings."
>
>
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_Qi0oxpmkX056xSZbouwY8N
>
What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
"Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.
TT
Oct 14, 2011, 7:42:49 PM10/14/11
to
minute I found numerous false claims and a rather disturbing agenda.
"Nobody can ever say with any certainty that Michael Jackson WASN'T a
child molester."
...Right, nobody can say with a certainty that anybody is not a child
molester.
>
> KING: Was there more than one? That wanted a conviction on maybe one
> of the counts?
giving alcohol to a minor.
>
> COOK: There were a couple of things that I wanted -- I can't even
> remember them now to be honest with you, without my notes and paper
> here in front of me.
> KING: We had some -- two people, different people tell us they thought
> he was a predator, but that was not proven in this case.
>
> COOK: Exactly.
>
argument above sucks: if someone thought he was guilty but there was no
evidence and they even voted innocent on all counts - then how on earth
is it relevant that they "thought" he was guilty.
I don't have any proof to back up my claim, but I think you're a pedofile.
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/23/lkl.01.html
>
And of course you forgot to post comments where jurors said:
- He was "absolutely not" a predator:
- "I can't say there was anything that convinced me to say guilty ever
throughout the whole trial."
- "the accuser and his family had some real credibility problems"
- "I can't say there was anything that convinced me to say guilty ever
throughout the whole trial."
- "But there was nothing -- we had a closet full of evidence. There was
nothing in that closet that was able to convince any of us of the
alleged crimes. And, I mean, it was -- I kept waiting and waiting
throughout the trial you know, when are they going to bring in some kind
of evidence that was going to be convincing and they never brought it."
- "He's absolutely innocent of all these alleged accusations."
- "Nothing. I went in there with a courage to convict a celebrity.
Because I really believe in doing what is right. And witness after
witness I was more convinced of the innocence, because of the
motivations of financial gain and revenge, it was just amazing the way
it was laid out."
...And that's coming from jurors.
Court_1
Oct 16, 2011, 3:20:10 PM10/16/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
> - Show quoted text -
pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
selling Michael out. I never made any claims about the veracity of the
statement only that I had read about it before. It may or may not be
true. In terms of the Jackson family members they seem like they are
all nuts.
Court_1
Oct 16, 2011, 3:27:01 PM10/16/11
to
untrustworthy.Pretty much EVERY site or article has a bias one way or
another including all of the completely nutty fan sites for Michael
Jackson. If you ever want to see fans who have lost their marbles and
are beyond the realm of any standards of normalcy, MJ fans are your
ticket. Some of the nuttiest and dumbest fans on the planet imo.
TT
Oct 16, 2011, 4:04:07 PM10/16/11
to
You're fooling no one here.
In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to
show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
-
Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a
past-films related comment:
Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than
impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from
great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old
clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in
HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
Smooth Criminal (HD):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceU4ANZKdOM
Leave me Alone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crbFmpezO4A&ob=av2e
The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a
transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of
thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought...
It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller
etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the
end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB
rated it a 10. :)
TT
Oct 16, 2011, 4:08:33 PM10/16/11
to
dedicated on proving MJ as a pedophile - that person is definitely more
twisted than the craziest of a fan.
Court_1
Oct 16, 2011, 4:23:41 PM10/16/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have never even seen Moonwalker. It looks fantastically stupid. :)
> - Show quoted text -
Court_1
Oct 16, 2011, 4:25:39 PM10/16/11
to
On Oct 16, 4:08 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> I wouldn't know about that. My opinion is that if one makes a website
> dedicated on proving MJ as a pedophile - that person is definitely more
> twisted than the craziest of a fan
Definitely don't agree with you here. Nothing and nobody is crazier
> I wouldn't know about that. My opinion is that if one makes a website
> dedicated on proving MJ as a pedophile - that person is definitely more
> twisted than the craziest of a fan
than the rabid MJ fans.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 8:23:04 AM10/17/11
to
Appears to me that you're a huge hater merely, and know only negative
tabloid stuff about him.
Court_1
Oct 17, 2011, 8:38:39 AM10/17/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
LMAO. I was a huge fan, how many times do I have to tell you that. At
> - Show quoted text -
the point when Moonwalker was made however, I had begun my "WTF is
this thing called Michael Jackson" phase when he started with all of
the excessive plastic surgeries and makeup application. That turned me
off the Moonwalker thing plus the movie just seemed stupid to me. I
still bought his CD's after that--i.e.Bad, Dangerous, etc.
Do you believe Michael Jackson when he said he only had two or three
surgeries on his face? Do you think he was really in love with Lisa
Marie Presley or that other tank he married Debbie Rowe? :) Years ago
when I was a fan and very young I actually believed he was dating
Brooke Shields. Then I woke up some years later and realized the
truth. Seems you have not awaken yourself yet. ;)
The Loan Arranger
Oct 17, 2011, 8:53:43 AM10/17/11
to
MJ was a sick child molesting pervert.
He now resides in hell.
He now resides in hell.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 9:06:10 AM10/17/11
to
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 9:06:54 AM10/17/11
to
17.10.2011 15:53, The Loan Arranger kirjoitti:
> MJ was a sick child molesting pervert.
> He now resides in hell.
>
>
You'll be following him then.
> MJ was a sick child molesting pervert.
> He now resides in hell.
>
>
Court_1
Oct 17, 2011, 9:51:14 AM10/17/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
> - Show quoted text -
Clear as day to anybody with even half a brain who is not blinded by
the MJ manipulation machine.
Gracchus
Oct 17, 2011, 10:20:04 AM10/17/11
to
On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
> Clear as day to anybody with even half a brain who is not blinded by
> the MJ manipulation machine.
was being generous.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 11:05:46 AM10/17/11
to
listening evidence.
Juror1: "Absolutely not." (to question if MJ was a predator)
Juror 2: "I don't really think there was. I sat and I replayed
everything in my head over and over again. And I tried not to stick to
one thing or the other and to listen to everything thoroughly. I can't
say there was anything that convinced me to say guilty ever throughout
the whole trial."
Juror3: "He's absolutely innocent of all these alleged accusations."
the whole trial."
Juror4: "Nothing. I went in there with a courage to convict a celebrity.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 11:27:39 AM10/17/11
to
17.10.2011 17:20, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
>
> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> without witnesses present.
Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
> On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
>
> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> without witnesses present.
In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
aired, while whole world was watching.
> Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>
>
> I told you that the half-wit Finn was a half-wit. Now you know that I
> was being generous.
by your IP address. Maybe that's why you are so bitter towards people
with huge penises like myself. :-P
Court_1
Oct 17, 2011, 11:52:21 AM10/17/11
to
On Oct 17, 11:05 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
, , it was just amazing the way it was laid out...
And there you have the crux of the whole issue. Michael Jackson had
good lawyers and when you have good lawyers who have a lot of
financial incentive and who know how to structure a good argument and
lay it out correctly, jurors can believe anything. Remember in a
criminal trial the onus of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If
there is one shred of doubt you are not supposed to convict. Easy
peasy when you have mega millions behind you to structure a solid
argument and a world renowned beloved celebrity to defend.
Also, most jurors are just average working class people, they are not
generally brain surgeons.
, , it was just amazing the way it was laid out...
And there you have the crux of the whole issue. Michael Jackson had
good lawyers and when you have good lawyers who have a lot of
financial incentive and who know how to structure a good argument and
lay it out correctly, jurors can believe anything. Remember in a
criminal trial the onus of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If
there is one shred of doubt you are not supposed to convict. Easy
peasy when you have mega millions behind you to structure a solid
argument and a world renowned beloved celebrity to defend.
Also, most jurors are just average working class people, they are not
generally brain surgeons.
Court_1
Oct 17, 2011, 12:06:14 PM10/17/11
to
On Oct 17, 11:27 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> 17.10.2011 17:20, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
>
> > Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> > and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> > he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> > without witnesses present.
>
> Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
>
> In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
> messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
> The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
> aired, while whole world was watching.
>
> > Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> > him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> > behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> > pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>
> Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
That is not how the mind of a pedophile works. It is irrelevant
> 17.10.2011 17:20, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>
> > On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
>
> > Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> > and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> > he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> > without witnesses present.
>
> Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
>
> In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
> messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
> The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
> aired, while whole world was watching.
>
> > Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> > him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> > behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> > pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>
> Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
whether he thought he was doing something wrong or not, he simply
could not and did not want to stop himself. The more successful he
became the more opportunities for Michael to create this whole Peter
Pan world inside Neverland Ranch. Did you ever see Michael Jackson in
any relationship with an adult? I am not talking about the fake
relationships and marriages he conjured up with Brooke Shields, Lisa
Marie, etc. He may have had relationships with adult males, who knows
as that would have never been something he would have publicized but
even if he did have those relationships hidden it is clear he
preferred young underage boys to adult men.
Court_1
Oct 17, 2011, 11:58:12 AM10/17/11
to
On Oct 17, 10:20 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>
Yes, pedophilia is a compulsive illness. Not only was Michael Jackson
>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>
compelled to act on his desires but another aspect of this whole thing
is he kept doing it because he was Michael Jackson and he thought he
would get away with it being the internationally beloved music icon
that he was. Many people simply refuse to believe an unusually
talented entertainer such as Michael Jackson could also be a child
molester because many people can't or refuse to reconcile the two
things in most cases.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 12:29:56 PM10/17/11
to
17.10.2011 18:52, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 17, 11:05 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> , , it was just amazing the way it was laid out...
>
You try to misunderstand what is obvious.
> On Oct 17, 11:05 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> , , it was just amazing the way it was laid out...
>
The essential part was:
"because of the motivations of financial gain and revenge, it was just
amazing the way it was laid out"
> Also, most jurors are just average working class people, they are not
> generally brain surgeons.
I doubt you're any smarter, and you definitely are less informed and
> generally brain surgeons.
more biased.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 12:32:28 PM10/17/11
to
17.10.2011 19:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 17, 11:27 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 17.10.2011 17:20, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
>>
>>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
>>> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
>>> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
>>> without witnesses present.
>>
>> Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
>>
>> In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
>> messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
>> The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
>> aired, while whole world was watching.
>>
>>> Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
>>> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
>>> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
>>> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>>
>> Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
>
> That is not how the mind of a pedophile works. It is irrelevant
> whether he thought he was doing something wrong or not, he simply
> could not and did not want to stop himself.
You're again making claims that you have no evidence of. You have not
> On Oct 17, 11:27 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 17.10.2011 17:20, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
>>
>>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
>>> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
>>> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
>>> without witnesses present.
>>
>> Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
>>
>> In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
>> messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
>> The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
>> aired, while whole world was watching.
>>
>>> Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
>>> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
>>> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
>>> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>>
>> Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
>
> That is not how the mind of a pedophile works. It is irrelevant
> whether he thought he was doing something wrong or not, he simply
> could not and did not want to stop himself.
given a single factual argument on the issue, it's all opinions with you.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 12:42:29 PM10/17/11
to
17.10.2011 18:58, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Oct 17, 10:20 am, Gracchus<cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
>> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
>> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
>> without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
>> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
>> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
>> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>>
>
> Yes, pedophilia is a compulsive illness. Not only was Michael Jackson
> compelled to act on his desires but another aspect of this whole thing
> is he kept doing it because he was Michael Jackson and he thought he
> would get away with it being the internationally beloved music icon
> that he was.
Pretty stupid argument considering that there was over a decade long
> On Oct 17, 10:20 am, Gracchus<cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
>> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
>> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
>> without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
>> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
>> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
>> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>>
>
> Yes, pedophilia is a compulsive illness. Not only was Michael Jackson
> compelled to act on his desires but another aspect of this whole thing
> is he kept doing it because he was Michael Jackson and he thought he
> would get away with it being the internationally beloved music icon
> that he was.
witch hunt by Sneddon and he had to go to the court.
> Many people simply refuse to believe an unusually
> talented entertainer such as Michael Jackson could also be a child
> molester because many people can't or refuse to reconcile the two
> things in most cases.
what, no matter if he's proven innocent.
The reasoning seems to cumulate to merely one argument...that he had to
be a pedo because he was with children. Brilliant argument. No matter
evidence and facts - which you have provided none.
Quit your crusade already. He was ruled innocent and is dead now. Let's
discuss his music/films.
Court_1
Oct 17, 2011, 2:19:36 PM10/17/11
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evidence? What do you want me to do, find some pedophiles on the
> - Show quoted text -
street or in jail and have them post on here?
Read up on pedophiles and educate yourself since obviously you are not
very knowledgeable on this topic. It is not like pedophiles can just
"stop" molesting kids at will.
Court_1
Oct 17, 2011, 2:27:27 PM10/17/11
to
On Oct 17, 12:42 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> The reasoning seems to cumulate to merely one argument...that he had to
> be a pedo because he was with children. Brilliant argument. No matter
> evidence and facts - which you have provided none.
>
> Quit your crusade already. He was ruled innocent and is dead now. Let's
> discuss his music/films.
I am not required to provide any evidence of MJ's alleged child
>
> The reasoning seems to cumulate to merely one argument...that he had to
> be a pedo because he was with children. Brilliant argument. No matter
> evidence and facts - which you have provided none.
>
> Quit your crusade already. He was ruled innocent and is dead now. Let's
> discuss his music/films.
molesting. I was not hired as his attorney and I am not arguing his
case in a court of law where I need to provide evidence. I have read
all of the documents on his case and have formed an opinion. You have
provided no counter evidence to show he wasn't a child molester. All
you have is your opinion as well.
Also, for the last time, he was not ruled innocent. He was ruled not
guilty. Big difference.
Re his music, I can discuss that for days, but in terms of films there
is not much to speak of imo. I did not see This Is It yet.
TT
Oct 17, 2011, 2:57:21 PM10/17/11
to
17.10.2011 21:27, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Also, for the last time, he was not ruled innocent. He was ruled not
> guilty. Big difference.
Geez. Listen to yourself.
> Also, for the last time, he was not ruled innocent. He was ruled not
> guilty. Big difference.
0 new messages