Mj

[billyfridge]

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's guilty, 'there's no smoke without fire' and there's been plenty of smoke.

[ilw]

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'm curious what has happened to change your mind? As far as i can see it, in the last year:
no evidence I'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'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]

if he's innocent, then why did a family recieve millions in an out of court settlement a decade ago for the same thing?

[FatBastard]

Originally posted by kAb@17 December 2003 - 08:19
if he'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'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'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't molest him is all the proof anyone needs that he did.

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

[dwightfry]

Originally posted by kAb@16 December 2003 - 17:19
if he'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'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'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'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's THIS

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]

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'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!?

[ilw]

who would go on national tv and admit they sleep with young children period? Especially when he'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've made up your mind one way or the other it won't sway you at all.

MJ'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]

I have always thought he was innocent, but the fact that the first accuser knew what MJ'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'm not saying they aren't true, I just don't understand why it isn'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'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't give a fuck whether he gets off this or not, he'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]

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'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've made up your mind one way or the other it won't sway you at all.

MJ'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'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'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't there way more cases?
Pedophiles have weird urges so there should be more children complaining.

[kAb]

MJ still to be charged