Michael Jackson verdict (MEGAMERGE)

ArthurDent · 31-01-2005 11:29PM

At the very least he's a very warped wee man, that shouldn't be let have access to a goldfish let alone kids (his or anyone else's).

TBH the other set of people that should be up there on trial are the parents of the kids that were allowed stay at his ranch. I mean wtf were they thinking? Would you let your kids near someone that looked and sounded like him never mind any possible accusations of perviness.

Only Human · 01-02-2005 12:13AM

ArthurDent wrote:

At the very least he's a very warped wee man, that shouldn't be let have access to a goldfish let alone kids (his or anyone else's).

TBH the other set of people that should be up there on trial are the parents of the kids that were allowed stay at his ranch. I mean wtf were they thinking? Would you let your kids near someone that looked and sounded like him never mind any possible accusations of perviness.

Yeah your right. He shouldnt be a father because of his love for children. I have been told that he is an EXCELENT father. Its all in his biography by J.R.Taborelli. Its an unofficial biography and completely unbiassed. I recomend it to anyone here who wants to know what their talking about.
Its no more than €11.00 for anyone who'd willing, or interested inreading.

mycroft · 01-02-2005 12:27AM

Only Human wrote:

Yeah your right. He shouldnt be a father because of his love for children. I have been told that he is an EXCELENT father. Its all in his biography by J.R.Taborelli. Its an unofficial biography and completely unbiassed. I recomend it to anyone here who wants to know what their talking about.
Its no more than €11.00 for anyone who'd willing, or interested inreading.

Uh huh whatever to those people on this thread

1. everything you've read is biased and skewed by one side of the other.

2. The truth will never air out of this trial, jackson's lawyers will not be interested in proving their clients innocents they'll be too busy forcing the juror into a verdict of reasonable doubt, they'll cast inneudo and cast doubt at the reliability of witnesses. They'll be less interested in proving their clients innocence than then forcing the juror to face that the charges can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Final result will be similar to the OJ aquital an innocent verdict tarnished by the tactics of the defense councils tactics. It will leave Jackson free but the tactics utilized will tarnish his career/life forever

magick · 01-02-2005 12:41AM

Originally Posted by Housi It won't be an enjoyable feeling knowing that the man I've loved as a child

LOL the irony !

Only Human · 01-02-2005 12:48AM

mycroft wrote:

Uh huh whatever to those people on this thread

1. everything you've read is biased and skewed by one side of the other.

2. The truth will never air out of this trial, jackson's lawyers will not be interested in proving their clients innocents they'll be too busy forcing the juror into a verdict of reasonable doubt, they'll cast inneudo and cast doubt at the reliability of witnesses. They'll be less interested in proving their clients innocence than then forcing the juror to face that the charges can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Final result will be similar to the OJ aquital an innocent verdict tarnished by the tactics of the defense councils tactics. It will leave Jackson free but the tactics utilized will tarnish his career/life forever

Alot of the things I have read are Legal documents that have been released and made world news and others are leaked documents. Documents leaked by the District Attorney to Diane Diamonde, a reporter who has devoted her career to brining down Michael Jackson. She uses the same reports that I did to build my own opinion. They are very much unbiased. They are court documents. Ill admit that some of the things I have read are biasses but then I have also made my opinion on seeing some of the biassed stuff againts michael e.g. thesmokinggun.com where the testimony of the accuser was leaked and published. Note the video shown on www.mjjsource.com dismissing some of the false rhumours in these doccuments.

Courtfilings:
http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=40&func=selectfolder&filecatid=25

JohnK · 01-02-2005 02:21AM

I personally think he’s innocent but at the same time I don’t think that’ll make any difference. As some of the other posters have pointed out, his reputation is already destroyed and even if there is overwhelming proof that this was all an attempt at extortion* people will still say he is guilty.

* This is what I think its all about. Its all down to Money, plain and simple.

stagolee · 01-02-2005 12:09PM

gotta agree with mycroft here, as in most celebrity trials the real truth will never come out due to the outcome of the case resting more on legal tactics than evidence of inoccence or guilt.
as to wheather he is actually guilty? well i have no real idea of the evidence either way so i couldnt even hazard a guess

[Jackass] · 01-02-2005 01:48PM

Only Human wrote:

I think people get confused when Michael said he is peter pan. I think what he meant by this is that everything he stands for, peter pan stands for.

LMAO!!

Ya, i look up to snow white and the seven Dwarfs, i believe in their stance on global warming and the issue of third world debt.

only human wrote:

Is any of that illegal? Ive never heard of anyone getting arrested under Article 29 of the Impersonating Peter Pan Act.

No, but it proves he's mentally unstable, and capable of harming children as he is not in touch with reality, hasn't a clue of the laws of the actual real world, but the laws of a fantasy land, and his home is actually desinged to intice little children to want to stay. Would you consider it normal if your father slept in bed with lots of four to six year olds, who he doesnt even know the parents for at least 10 years...and he builds a home designed to invite over and intice children to his home?

As for the first child he mollested (allegedly), that brought him to court, and why wacko jacko didnt insist he clears his name in court, instead of buying his silence, because once the accusation is made, if he never clears his name, and he makes sure it dosent go to court, of course that will insinuate he was guilty...but i'll tell you why he did that...not because peter pan told him to, but because his legal advisers told him to because of the overwhellming evidence against him, he would have gone to jail!! He didnt just buy his silence, he bought his freedom, as for your lame argument he paid him off because "he couldnt take it anymore" ,lol, a compelling legal argument im sure. You also refer to the kid saying MJ is circumsized when he's not..i doubt the kid has seen to many d!cks, so it would be easy to noy be able to tell the difference, also, you say he was on drugs....i'd probably be a drug addict too if i was emotionally abused by his parents when he was a kid (which you refer to) and sexually abused by whacko.

only human wrote:

I know Karen Faye, Michael Jacksons makeup artist and best friend over the last 24 years. She has told me herself that Michael Jackson is incapable of doing such horific things to children.

well if she sais so!! Jesus, do the court know about this? call the district prosectution, tell them to drop the case!!! you have un-disputeable evidence!!!! You've proved he's innocent!!! YEAY! now you can go over and have a party with MJ in never land, and leave any young relatives you have to stay the night, and pick them up the next day!!
/me wonders why a woman would defend her top client who's probably single handedly made her a multi-millionaire with his make up demands.....

Look, bottom line, the guys an absolute fruit cake, with absolutely no comprehession of the real world...and he has sex with children...and when the case is over, im going to bring this thread back up and see what you have to say

Dont call me an idiot again...you're defending a child mollester...........

slappy hayden · 01-02-2005 04:24PM

innocent until proven guilty

Only Human · 01-02-2005 04:25PM

DubGuy22 wrote:

No, but it proves he's mentally unstable, and capable of harming children as he is not in touch with reality, hasn't a clue of the laws of the actual real world, but the laws of a fantasy land, and his home is actually desinged to intice little children to want to stay. Would you consider it normal if your father slept in bed with lots of four to six year olds, who he doesnt even know the parents for at least 10 years...and he builds a home designed to invite over and intice children to his home?

I'd like to know how it PROVES he is mentaly unstable. He sees similaritys between himself and peter pan and al of a sudden hes a lunatic. Neverland was designed to appeal to the child, the child within everyone. As I have said before he had missed out on his childhood. Wheter or not he wants to build a theme park in his back garden at the end of the day is none of your buisness. The things that lure children to his house are not in his bed.

DubGuy22 wrote:

but because his legal advisers told him to because of the overwhellming evidence against him, he would have gone to jail!!

What evidence? when I said he was on drugs I meant he was on drugs during the testimony. There is more evidence indicating innocence than there is guilt.

DubGuy22 wrote:

well if she sais so!! Jesus, do the court know about this? call the district prosectution, tell them to drop the case!!! you have un-disputeable evidence!!!! You've proved he's innocent!!! YEAY!

Think of your best friend. Some one you have known for a very long time. Now imagine someone accusing him/her of something you know is false and that anyone who knows him/her knows that he/she would never do.
That is the situation between Karen and Michael. I never said this is evidence. I take her word for it. Her discriptions of michael are that he is a very down to earth same guy, once you see past all the rumours.

DubGuy22 wrote:

Look, bottom line, the guys an absolute fruit cake, with absolutely no comprehession of the real world...and he has sex with children...and when the case is over, im going to bring this thread back up and see what you have to say
Dont call me an idiot again...you're defending a child mollester...........

I take back calling you an idot, its just frustrating with the situation I'm in. I have been a fan for as long as I can remember, and i think most fans will agree that when someone insults MJ we take it very personally as we fell he is a part of us. I dont defend child molesters.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 01-02-2005 04:27PM

Look, bottom line, the guys an absolute fruit cake, with absolutely no comprehession of the real world...and he has sex with children...and when the case is over, im going to bring this thread back up and see what you have to say
Dont call me an idiot again...you're defending a child mollester...........

exactly. personally I find the whole idea of a trial offensive, he is a monster and he doesn't deserve a chance to defend himself.

slappy hayden · 01-02-2005 04:30PM

Mordeth wrote:

exactly. personally I find the whole idea of a trial offensive, he is a monster and he doesn't deserve a chance to defend himself.

that is such a contradiction if the shoe was on the other foot you would want your day in court

Drapper · 01-02-2005 04:33PM

slappy hayden wrote:

that is such a contradiction if the shoe was on the other foot you would want your day in court

Why is when its a celeb they are guilty until proven innocent and the case of an unknow he is innocent until proven guilty """ think about it !!

Give the guy a break !!!!

Not an MJ fan but a humanist !!!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 01-02-2005 04:38PM

two things

slappy, learn to recognise sarcasm.

drapper... I think that's what slappy was saying too :0

Zulu · 01-02-2005 04:47PM

Guilty.
Answer this - if he's innocent, when would he have paid off the first time round.

Assumning that WAS a mistake. Why would he have a hidden childs bedroom off his own? He is a grown man. He has to take responsibility. He MAY be innocient. OJ was ... wasn't he?

Only Human · 01-02-2005 04:49PM

Zulu wrote:

Guilty.
Answer this - if he's innocent, when would he have paid off the first time round.

Assumning that WAS a mistake. Why would he have a hidden childs bedroom off his own? He is a grown man. He has to take responsibility. He MAY be innocient. OJ was ... wasn't he?

Where did you hear that. The sun?

Blub2k4 · 01-02-2005 05:02PM

Scandalous how a man can love children, lock up all Grandas, the pedos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ClareBear · 01-02-2005 05:04PM

I hope Michael Jackson is innocent....the whole thing makes me sad either way.

Zulu · 01-02-2005 05:05PM

Only Human wrote:

Where did you hear that. The sun?

Which fact didn't you like?

Only Human wrote:

I know Karen Faye, Michael Jacksons makeup artist and best friend over the last 24 years. She has told me herself that Michael Jackson is incapable of doing such horific things to children.

She knows this of course, because she is a make up artist, and a friend

...a make up artist and a friend :rolleyes:

Incrediably rapists, murders, and peodaphiles tend to all have family and friends who say their loved ones are "incapable" of such crimes.

Drapper · 01-02-2005 05:06PM

Zulu where are you getting your info from ? please share ?

Zulu · 01-02-2005 05:06PM

Blub2k4 wrote:

Scandalous how a man can love children, lock up all Grandas, the pedos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do all granda's sleep with other peoples children? (ie: not relations) ...and frankly, I woulld find it weird to share a bed with a grandfather (but you can ignore that as I never met any of my grandfathers)

Only Human · 01-02-2005 05:14PM

I dont agree that he should sleep in the same bed with children but i believe it is totaly innocent. Look at where he grew up. He lived in a 2 bedroomed house with 9 children. Through out his whole childhood he has been sleeping in the same bed as someone else. To him there is nothing wrong with sharing your bed, its the way he was braught up. Just because it is diffrent to what you believe in doesnt mean that it is wrong.

Zulu · 01-02-2005 05:18PM

Drapper wrote:

Zulu where are you getting your info from ? please share ?

It was a long time ago I read it - but I don't read tabloids. However a quick look down in google ("michael jackson + secret room") gives plenty for you to peruse.

1
2
3

Zulu · 01-02-2005 05:23PM

Only Human wrote:

I dont agree that he should sleep in the same bed with children but i believe it is totaly innocent. Look at where he grew up. He lived in a 2 bedroomed house with 9 children. Through out his whole childhood he has been sleeping in the same bed as someone else. To him there is nothing wrong with sharing your bed, its the way he was braught up. Just because it is diffrent to what you believe in doesnt mean that it is wrong.

...but your honour - It wasn't rape - where I grew up "surprise sex" was just another way to say hello to people.

Give me a break will ya. ....where he grew up. Look, he is a grown man. He is responsible for his OWN actions.

Drapper · 01-02-2005 05:25PM

Zulu wrote:

It was a long time ago I read it - but I don't read tabloids. However a quick look down in google ("michael jackson + secret room") gives plenty for you to peruse.

1
2
3

Silence.................. thats mad !!!

Blub2k4 · 01-02-2005 05:28PM

He's got a room, and has had kids in his bed, cant you see what he's up to?

Burn burn burn.

Only Human · 01-02-2005 05:51PM

Zulu wrote:

...but your honour - It wasn't rape - where I grew up "surprise sex" was just another way to say hello to people.

Give me a break will ya. ....where he grew up. Look, he is a grown man. He is responsible for his OWN actions.

So this room that was accessible from Jacksons room was a sex room. Is there anything there that suggests sex? Maybe the peterpan bed spreads? or the telephone beside the bed?
Why are you twisting what I wrote? I said its acceptable for him to sleep in the same bed as someone else! and that it was all innocent and you turn it into sex.

Its just sleeping - Michael Jackson

Zulu · 01-02-2005 05:53PM

Drapper wrote:

Silence.................. thats mad !!!

What are you on about?

I gave you the links - what exactly is your problem now? Whos silent? Whats mad?

Drapper · 01-02-2005 05:54PM

Zulu wrote:

What are you on about?

I gave you the links - what exactly is your problem now? Whos silent? Whats mad?

Never read that before I'm a bit shocked !!

Only Human · 01-02-2005 05:57PM

Why would anyone be shocked at a childs room attached to his own if he has admited publicly to sleeping in the same room and bed as children. This room could be for his own children if they wanted to come in and sleep near their father.

Michael Jackson verdict (MEGAMERGE)

Comments