PDA

View Full Version : Mj


dwightfry
12-12-2003, 12:04 PM
I was just wondering, is anyone changing there minds about Jacksons guilt then they did, say a year a go, and is it for the better or worse.

I, personally, am in the middle now, leaning slightly towards the innocent. A woman at work thought he was guilty, but now is leaning towards innocent as well, probably because of me.


No responding to other peoples post.
We don't need explanations either.
far
12-12-2003, 01:52 PM
INNOCENT!
WHAT DUMB FUCK WOULD ADMIT ON NATIONAL TV THAT HE SLEEPS WITH CHILDREN IF HE REALLY WAS A PEDOPHILE
muchspl2
12-12-2003, 01:57 PM
guilty, may god have mercy on his sole
dwightfry
12-12-2003, 02:35 PM
We don't need explanations either.

I just don't want people to start argueing. I'm just curious how many people think what. Maybe we can have a poll. I'll PM a mod.
Rat Faced
12-12-2003, 03:38 PM
Dont you think Innocence should be decided by trial, and not by website?
dwightfry
12-12-2003, 03:57 PM
Nothing is being decided, I just want to know what people think. I am a STRONG believer of waiting until the trial until you say you know something for sure. But people have there suspicions.

BTW, it should somebody's 'guilt' should be decided by trial. He is innocent until then.
far
12-12-2003, 04:20 PM
Dont you think Innocence should be decided by trial

TELL that to the media...They have already decided that he is guilty...They try to brainwash us...Innocent until proven guilty!
dwightfry
12-12-2003, 05:49 PM
okay...this is going where I didn't want it to.

"I think he's guilty", or "I think he's innocent" is all I'm looking for. I am just curious how many people suspect he is guilty or how many people suspect he is innocent.

Oy...Corner Pocket is going to discuss a poll with the other mods. We'll see how that goes...this just isn't going to work I guess.
Mivaro
12-12-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by dwightfry@12 December 2003 - 17:49
"I think he's guilty", or "I think he's innocent" is all I'm looking for.
I think he's innocent...
Wizard_Mon1
12-12-2003, 07:55 PM
they call us the thread highjackers!

so who wants to talk about j/k :P

i think his is a messed up individual but as to whether he is a kiddy fidler i will let the courst decide B)
billyfridge
12-13-2003, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by dwightfry@12 December 2003 - 12:04
I was just wondering, is anyone changing there minds about Jacksons guilt then they did, say a year a go, and is it for the better or worse.

I, personally, am in the middle now, leaning slightly towards the innocent. A woman at work thought he was guilty, but now is leaning towards innocent as well, probably because of me.


No responding to other peoples post.
We don't need explanations either.
I think he&#39;s guilty, &#39;there&#39;s no smoke without fire&#39; and there&#39;s been plenty of smoke. <_<
ilw
12-16-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by dwightfry@12 December 2003 - 12:04
I was just wondering, is anyone changing there minds about Jacksons guilt then they did, say a year a go, and is it for the better or worse.

I, personally, am in the middle now, leaning slightly towards the innocent. A woman at work thought he was guilty, but now is leaning towards innocent as well, probably because of me.

I know you said you just want a thumbs up or down, but i&#39;m curious what has happened to change your mind? As far as i can see it, in the last year:
no evidence I&#39;m aware of has come up showing his innocence of previous accusations,
the man has admitted to continuing to sleep with children,
he has on several occasions made it perfectly clear he isn&#39;t fully compus mentus
now, following accusations and a police raid on his house, he is facing prosecution for charges similar to the previous ones

btw thumbs down from me. why continue to sleep with children?
kAb
12-16-2003, 11:19 PM
if he&#39;s innocent, then why did a family recieve millions in an out of court settlement a decade ago for the same thing?
FatBastard
12-17-2003, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by kAb@17 December 2003 - 08:19
if he&#39;s innocent, then why did a family recieve millions in an out of court settlement a decade ago for the same thing?
Not only that; in that agreement, he was prohibited from claiming that he didn&#39;t molest that child. Why would he allow that to be put in? After an appearence on the Oprah Winfrey Show, with his then wife, Priscilla Presley, he was hauled up again for claiming he hadn&#39;t molested the boy, that cost him more money.

The whole thing stunk, right from the start. He went on national TV all over the world, and asked to be judged on his actions. When he returned to the States he bought the kid off. The claim that he did it for the sake of the boy is ludicrous, and the fact that he was unable to claim that he didn&#39;t molest him is all the proof anyone needs that he did.

So I don&#39;t give a fuck whether he gets off this or not, he&#39;s still a fucking paedophile.
dwightfry
12-17-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by kAb@16 December 2003 - 17:19
if he&#39;s innocent, then why did a family recieve millions in an out of court settlement a decade ago for the same thing?
Fine, screw the whole just guilty, not guilty thing.

The question is, "If he is GUILTY why did the family recieve millions in an out of court settlemnt a decade ago for the same thing?" If MJ really molested the child then no money would have been enough. They would have wanted him off of the streets.


Not only that; in that agreement, he was prohibited from claiming that he didn&#39;t molest that child. Why would he allow that to be put in? After an appearence on the Oprah Winfrey Show, with his then wife, Priscilla Presley, he was hauled up again for claiming he hadn&#39;t molested the boy, that cost him more money.

The agreement prohibited him from TALKING about the case, not claiming his innocence. So the question here is why would they put that in because he obviously would never admit to such a crime even if he did do it. They didn&#39;t want him to be able to defend himself. And like any big star, they would not want something like this to go on, they would end it with any means possible. He had the money that the parents wanted.


PLUS, there&#39;s THIS (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=86981)

Not only was Jackson cleared of all charges by social services before the matter was brought to the police. But the mother of the boy last year claimed she was sexually assualted by and beaten by secuirity guards at a store. That was proven to be a lie.

If you want to talk about things stinking, I think this REAKS a lot more.
far
12-17-2003, 01:18 PM
The fact that the parents accepted the money in 93 tells alot more about them then MJ..No parent in his right mind would do that if they really belived he was a pedofile....MJ&#39;s problem is that he is honest and naiv....It is the world we live in that is fucked up....When he says I sleep with little kids in my bed...Everyone at once think about sex...But what pedofile would go on national tv and admitt they share bed with young children&#33;?
ilw
12-17-2003, 01:35 PM
who would go on national tv and admit they sleep with young children period? Especially when he&#39;s been prosecuted (and not acquitted) for sexual advances towards children.
Can you think of any non-paedophiles who like to sleep with other peoples young children?

The question of why the family accepted the money is open to debate, its completely inconclusive. If you&#39;ve made up your mind one way or the other it won&#39;t sway you at all.


MJ&#39;s problem is that he is honest and naive
I think his real problem is that he keeps sleeping and living with other peoples children.


Edit: @dwightfry, what in particular has changed your mind, is it the existence/details of the current case, or did you read up more on the previous case....?
dwightfry
12-17-2003, 02:48 PM
I have always thought he was innocent, but the fact that the first accuser knew what MJ&#39;s genitals looked like, and there was book full of paintings/art of nude children is very suspicious. (Neither of which I heard about until the last year, which questions the credibilty. I&#39;m not saying they aren&#39;t true, I just don&#39;t understand why it isn&#39;t brought up everytime people argue about this.)

But I honestly think the biggest thing was that I realized the disappointment I would have if he is guilty. I realized that it is possible that these accusations are true.

I really think he&#39;s innocent, I just recognize that fact that he could be guilty.

I would like the people who think that he is guilty to recognize the fact that he could be innocent.



So I don&#39;t give a fuck whether he gets off this or not, he&#39;s still a fucking paedophile.

People like him.


------------------------------------------

To add to reasons why I think he is innocent. Pedophiles have the urges just by seeing the kids on TV. Jackson sees kids, in person, nearly every day it seems. No pedophile would be able to handle that kind of pressure and there is no way he could have went 10 years without any trouble.
Busyman
12-17-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by ilw@17 December 2003 - 13:35
who would go on national tv and admit they sleep with young children period? Especially when he&#39;s been prosecuted (and not acquitted) for sexual advances towards children.
Can you think of any non-paedophiles who like to sleep with other peoples young children?

The question of why the family accepted the money is open to debate, its completely inconclusive. If you&#39;ve made up your mind one way or the other it won&#39;t sway you at all.


MJ&#39;s problem is that he is honest and naive
I think his real problem is that he keeps sleeping and living with other peoples children.


Edit: @dwightfry, what in particular has changed your mind, is it the existence/details of the current case, or did you read up more on the previous case....?
The family accepted money because that was their point.
The child could have seen MJ&#39;s genitals when he was changing or coming out the shower.
The parents file a criminal charge.
Then file a civil suit, settle out of court, and get paid.
The normal succession is to file and win the criminal case then file a civil suit but that&#39;s not what happened.
The criminal charge was filed for pressure to settle .....

With the wave of children that stay at his house why aren&#39;t there way more cases?
Pedophiles have weird urges so there should be more children complaining.
kAb
12-18-2003, 05:39 AM
MJ still to be charged (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/17/jackson.charge/index.html)
FatBastard
12-18-2003, 06:33 AM
This talk of why the parents took the money if he was guilty is ridiculous. Look at the amount, tens of millions of dollars. Imagine that dangled in front of your face.

Read the indictment from 1993 here. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjcivil1.html). And the boy&#39;s statement here. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html)

He molested that kid in 1993, if he didn&#39;t, why did he settle? He settled because of the overwhelming body of evidence against him.

Paedophile.
dwightfry
12-18-2003, 11:47 AM
Look at the amount of Money?&#33;?&#33;?&#33; Look at their child. Look at all the other children that will be around MJ in the future. There is no denying that if these accusations are true, then that means those are bad parents. It wasn&#39;t MJ&#39;s idea to pay them off, it was the parent&#39;s idea. MJ wasn&#39;t dangling anything in front of them. They came looking for it.


please list this
overwhelming body of evidence

I know of 2 peices of evidence. Only one that really means anything. Everything else is there word against his.
100%
12-18-2003, 03:00 PM
Jackson to be charged Thursday

(CNN) -- Pop star Michael Jackson will be formally charged Thursday afternoon with molesting a young boy, the Santa Barbara district attorney&#39;s office confirmed Wednesday.
FatBastard
12-18-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by dwightfry@18 December 2003 - 20:47
It wasn&#39;t MJ&#39;s idea to pay them off, it was the parent&#39;s idea. MJ wasn&#39;t dangling anything in front of them. They came looking for it.


Wasn&#39;t his idea? Are you serious? He could have denied it, and told them to piss off. He then would have been charged, and the evidence heard in a court of law. If he had nothing to fear, he would have got off. The publicity would have died in a few months. He chose to pay them off. That was an admission of guilt.
Busyman
12-18-2003, 03:56 PM
A settlement is never an admission of guilt.
dwightfry
12-18-2003, 06:18 PM
FatBastard, If the family that got paid off 10 years ago came forward, and admitted it was all a lie, and the present accusers came forward and admitted it was all a lie, would you still think he&#39;s guilty?


------------------------------------------

Source (http://www.steveharvey.com/michaeljackson.htm)

The father of the first accuser was known for being an ass.

The settlement wasn&#39;t only money, MJ had to give a movie script the father wrote to some big time directors

There is an Audiotape of the father saying stuff like. "Everything is going to a certain plan..." "There is no way I lose. I&#39;ve checked inside out. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever. June (His ex-wife) will lose [custody of her son].... and Michaels career will be over"

Only the father was making the accusations until the boy was drugged with sodium amytal at a dental office. Under this drug people are very sugestable. People on this drug will say things that are blatantly untrue, and will cause false memories.


-----------------------------------------

This is just too much, I&#39;m going to start a new post.
Busyman
12-18-2003, 08:12 PM
Why a new thread? We still see the info just the same.
FatBastard
12-19-2003, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by dwightfry@19 December 2003 - 03:18
FatBastard, If the family that got paid off 10 years ago came forward, and admitted it was all a lie, and the present accusers came forward and admitted it was all a lie, would you still think he&#39;s guilty?


What sort of stupid question is that? No-one has come forward and said the first lot was a lie, and I haven&#39;t commented on his guilt this time. He&#39;s now been charged, on at least 10 counts, let&#39;s wait and see.

Why are you two so adament of his innocence?
dwightfry
12-19-2003, 11:44 AM
What sort of stupid question is that? No-one has come forward and said the first lot was a lie

I was just wondering if there is any part of you that realizes that you could be wrong, and if confessions from the accusers would be enough to bring it out.

I&#39;m adament about his innocence because there is no reason to believe otherwise at this time. It&#39;s not fair to accuse somebody of being a pedophile when they may be innocent. That will stick with him forever, I would feel very shitty about myself if I found out he was innocent and I had spent the last several years slandering his name.

Did you read the article? There&#39;s a plain text version over HERE (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=88557)
far
12-19-2003, 02:17 PM
How can people be so blind&#33;?...They say he commited the first crime of charges on the 9th of february...Thats two days after the Bashir interview aired ..And u expect us to belive that he molested the child just two days after the boy appeared on tv...What dumb mofo would do that?...He has 100 of kids around him all the time and he chooses exactly that boy&#33;?

A confidential investigation by Los Angeles police and child welfare officials concluded earlier this year that allegations Michael Jackson sexually abused a cancer-stricken boy were "unfounded," according to an internal government memo obtained by The Smoking Gun.

As you can see the charges were unfounded earlier this year...So they are trying to tell us that the boy continued to sleep with MJ after he charged him of child molestation&#33;..Cmon now...If u have a child and God forbid he was melested by a pedofile...Whats the first thing you would do?...Call the police ofcourse or beat the shit out of him...But no...The first thing the mother did was go to the lawyer Tom Sneddon...The person that tried to put MJ in jail in 93...The more people learn about this case ..the more they will know this whole thing is motivated by revenge and money&#33;


He&#39;s now been charged, on at least 10 counts

Get your facts right..Its 7 counts.Two of them say he gave the boy alcohol...MJ doesnt even drink&#33;
ThePlasticSurgeon
12-19-2003, 04:37 PM
As far as I am aware he is innocent. According to Article 11.1 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)*:


Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Therefore we must assume Michael Jackson is innocent until a court of law proves that he is guilty.

*This soucre of the declaration is presumed accurate as it is taken from the official website of The United Nations (http://www.un.org).
ZeroTolerance
12-19-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by ThePlasticSurgeon@19 December 2003 - 16:37
As far as I am aware he is innocent. According to Article 11.1 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)*:


Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Therefore we must assume Michael Jackson is innocent until a court of law proves that he is guilty.

*This soucre of the declaration is presumed accurate as it is taken from the official website of The United Nations (http://www.un.org).
very true :D