|
01 Jul 09 - 05:58 AM (#2668727) Subject: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!!!? From: Jason Xion Wang I recall that there once was a topic discussing about Michael Jackson's innocence. Yesterday, I heard that the '93 kid saying that he brought a false charge when he was prosecuting Jackson, "Jackson didn't do anything to me". That's real astonishing news. Is Michael Jackson really innocent? Or he's not? What do you think? Waiting for an answer here in China. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 07:28 AM (#2668769) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: kendall No. the word is NOT GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt. Big difference.Any good lawyer can create reasonable doubt. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 09:36 AM (#2668868) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: GUEST,lox "Yesterday, I heard that the '93 kid saying that he brought a false charge when he was prosecuting Jackson, "Jackson didn't do anything to me"." This is of interest to me. Kendall "Any good lawyer can create reasonable doubt." So can lack of evidence. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 09:48 AM (#2668880) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: GUEST,leeneia Recently I read a book by a retired federal prosecutor, telling his life story and describing his most important cases. This was a guy whose entire mindset was 'I go after the bad guys.' However, he said that false accusations of child abuse are common. He advised any prosecutor to be sure of all the facts before taking on such a child-abuse case. This is something to keep in mind. Has there been abuse, or is the press merely having a field day ripping up someone's reputation? |
|
01 Jul 09 - 09:55 AM (#2668886) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: number 6 "He advised any prosecutor to be sure of all the facts before taking on such a child-abuse case." Now ... shouldn't this be the case in any criminal prosecution ... Geeez. biLL |
|
01 Jul 09 - 10:13 AM (#2668898) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Richard Bridge In the UK the CPS are supposed to take a case if there is a 51% chance of conviction but not if it is 49%. That, frankly, worries me. But on the matter in hand (as it were) I always found the fact that his accusers were serial fraudsters by means of similar accusations against others made me consider it likely that their accusations against Jackson were false. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 10:18 AM (#2668905) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: GUEST,Tug the Cox Posted earlier, somehow got lost, but kendall seems to have replied. I pointed out that he had been convicted of nothing, and that in lae the word for that is innocent. Kendall disagrees, he is mistaken. The presumption in law is innocent. There is no such legal category as not guilty beyond a resonable doubt.I Scotland, but nowhere else, there is a category of 'not proven', but this does not apply to any cases MJ was involved in. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 10:28 AM (#2668919) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Jeri TtC, no it's not the same thing. The prosecution can fail to prove someone is guilty, but the defense doesn't need to prove anything. 'Innocent' is something that needs to be proven only if someone is assumed to be guilty. Wikipedia on acquittal |
|
01 Jul 09 - 10:37 AM (#2668923) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: bobad Again, from a reporter who followed the trial, he was there, none of us were: "It is not that Jackson was obviously a child molester who happened to get lucky with a soft jury in 2005. That was not the case at all: the charges against him were overblown and should never have reached court. The accusers were hucksters with zero credibility — something that should have been obvious from the beginning to Tom Sneddon, the red-faced, shouty Santa Barbara County District Attorney, who seemed to have made a personal crusade out of putting Jackson in prison. No, what made a little bit of your soul die every time you went to court was the spectacle of a man who had been so utterly corrupted by everything that's wrong with fame — to the point where he had quite literally mutilated himself." http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6586830.ece |
|
01 Jul 09 - 11:44 AM (#2668967) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: meself Why is it, apparently, perfectly acceptable to level unproven accusations at MJ's accusers, if we are unwilling to accept the possibility of guilt on his part that has not been proven in a court of law? Can't have it both ways. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 11:45 AM (#2668969) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: John on the Sunset Coast Child abuse is an horrific act. The abuser steals the child's innocence, and damages the child (often) physically, and (in probably all cases) psychologically for life. That said, for about a twenty year period during the 1980s and '90s, accusations of mass child abuse were given currency and prosecuted. It was a 20th century version of the Salem Witch trials. Even as the media and common sense belied these accusations, I remember that a former, local talk-show host spent about 80% of her time on the then current investigations and trials. Her mantra was that the children must be believed, even in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The most high profile case is probably the McMartin Pre-school case which was adjudicated over a three or so year period, and (I believe) at least two trials, all but one defendant were exonerated completely, and that one was, perhaps, found guilty on a very minor charge. There was zero corroborating physical evidence, and it was shown that the children's testimonies had had been tainted by the interviewing psychologists and others. In Oregon (I think) members of clergy and some of the lay leadership of a local church were charged with mass and ritual child abuse after church services over a long period of time. This, too, proved untrue. In Bakersfield, Calif. (about 110 miles north of Los Angeles) a group of adults was similarly accused. They were not so fortunate, and were convicted and imprisoned. A few years later those convictions were overturned for lack of evidence, or the recantation of some of the alleged victims. I don't whether this was the end of that case (I stopped traveling to that city) but I believe it was. It is good and proper that we should make every effort to protect our children. But this doesn't mean that we leave our common sense behind in the process. I'm sorry I don't have time to look up the particulars of these and other cases, but I leave for vacation (holiday) tomorrow a.m., but there is tons of material on the web re: McMartin, and I'm sure the others can be googled. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 11:51 AM (#2668973) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Backwoodsman Aren't Tug and jeri saying the same thing - the presumption in English and US law is innocent until proven guilty, therefore if the prosecution fails to prove guilt, the accused is assumed innocent. Tug's other comment is about the 'Not Proven' category which exists in Scottish law, but not in English or US law, and it is not the same thing as 'Not Guilty' (aka 'innocent'). BTW Scotland and England are different countries, and do not have a completely universal system of law. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 12:51 PM (#2669020) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: number 6 Hey kids ... just found out Michael Jackson is DEAD !!! |
|
01 Jul 09 - 12:54 PM (#2669024) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Rapparee Yeah, sure. It's another publicity stunt, I bet. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 01:12 PM (#2669044) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Jeri It's a semantics thing. Perhaps we do mean the same thing, but the fact Tug took issue with what kendall said made me think not. Everybody's presumed innocent. MJ was, I was, you were. None of us did it. The prosecution's job is to prove the accused is guilty of a specific crime. When they fail to prove guilt, they do not prove innocence. He started out innocent and nothing changed. Do I think he did it? I don't know. People have a habit of singling out oddballs and accusing them of all sorts of things. He certainly was damaged, but whether that made him turn around and become a predator or someone who just needed to be with non-threatening people, I don't know. I AM quite sure I don't much care for the 'pick on the weird guy' mentality. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 01:27 PM (#2669057) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Uncle_DaveO I pointed out that he had been convicted of nothing, and that in lae the word for that is innocent. "Innocent" is not really a word of law; it has to do with morals or with ethics or religion. No jury--at least in the United States, and I expect in the UK--finds any defendant "innocent". They either find "Guilty" or they find "Not Guilty", or better, "Not Guilty As Charged". But a finding of not guilty doesn't mean that "the guy didn't do it"; it's a technical finding in law that the acts complained of weren't proved to have occurred in the exact way alleged, or that the knowledge or intent ("scienter") alleged were not present in the defendant's mind. As a matter of fact, "guilty" in law doesn't mean quite the same thing as "guilty" in ethics or morals or religion either. Dave Oesterreich |
|
01 Jul 09 - 01:39 PM (#2669069) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: robomatic The highly publicized trial of MJ was a circus on the order of the OJ Trial, if not even more bizarre. I think he made a settlement with the family of his accuser, I recall that one of the items of evidence was photographs of MJ's reproductive equipment. None of this seemed to come down definitive that he was a child molester in the criminal sense. Bizarre, certainly, non normal, sure, but in the continuum of human behavior I was never of the opinion that he was truly 'BAD'. He was extremely talented, a gifted entertainer, and a weirdo. One typically pays a high price with this combination of attributes, which are by no means unique. It's a little sad to see the Posthumous circus. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 01:41 PM (#2669073) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Little Hawk Every day I give thanks that I am not as famous as Michael Jackson! ;-) |
|
01 Jul 09 - 01:50 PM (#2669078) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: kendall Any 35 year old man who takes small boys into his bed is up for suspicion. Not guilty, by law is not the same as innocent. OJ was found not guilty but he sure as hell is not innocent. I would die before I would settle if I was innocent. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 02:54 PM (#2669121) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: GUEST,lox I would die before accepting a settlement if I had been abused. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 03:11 PM (#2669127) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: frogprince Kendall, a lot of us would die before settling out of court on an accusation like that. But a lot of us aren't 35 year old frightened, vulnerable children. A few days ago I saw a replay of Jackson's interview just after the settlement. He expressed his horror at the fact that his lawyers could not promise that going through a trial would lead to a just outcome, and his need to put the nightmare behind him. Couple that with the recantation of an accuser, after the death of the accused. I absolutely don't know if Jackson was a simpering lier or a man guilty of nothing more than exceptionallly poor judgement. I am dead positive, in my own mind, that the OJ verdict was a travesty. I have no such conviction now regarding Jackson. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 03:19 PM (#2669132) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: M.Ted In fact, Kendall, and all, this thread is about the rumors that are floating around the internet that Jordan Chandler, who filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson in 1993 claiming damages for molestation, has now admitted that the charges were fabricated. So Kendall's statement, while true, would be irrelevant, since the person who filed the civil complaint, back in 1993, is now saying that the lawsuit that his father filed on his behalf is based was based on false statements and that he was not in fact assaulted by MJ. That has nothing whatsoever to do with any discussion of the legal meaning of being found NOT GUILTY-- Given that, the "recanting" is only a rumor with no documentation of any kind anywhere--and, since Jordan's I993 civil complaint was accompanied by a detailed sworn statement, any "recanting" constitutes an admission of perjury, which could result in criminal charges, and an admission of libel, in remarkably large damages could be claimed. Beyond that, it would be nice if you all took the trouble to read the posts before responding to them--but what's the fun in that? |
|
01 Jul 09 - 03:25 PM (#2669136) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: M.Ted I meant to say, "Given that, the "recanting" is only a rumor with no documentation of any kind anywhere--and, since Jordan's I993 civil complaint was accompanied by a detailed sworn statement, any "recanting" constitutes an admission of perjury, which could result in criminal charges, and an admission of libel, which, could result in a remarkably large lawsuit, and so seems kind of unlikely"-- |
|
01 Jul 09 - 03:36 PM (#2669142) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Georgiansilver Where performing and music were concerned, perhaps Michael Jackson was more than good... What many people were saying when he was accused of abuse was that he had never grown up and saw no harm in sharing a bed with any child!!!... perhaps those people should be given some credibility if the first child admitted it was a fabrication.... The so called facts in the second accusation were so blown out of proportion that the case was dismissed.... Michael Jackson is innocent... or maybe not so!! who knows.. who will ever know.?? but many will judge him from the influence of the press and other media. For me... it's all over/done with/ past/history......... |
|
01 Jul 09 - 04:00 PM (#2669159) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Amos "Mr. Jackson, who died last Thursday at age 50, left three children: his oldest son, Michael Joseph Jr., known as Prince Michael, 12; a daughter, Paris Michael Katherine, 11; and another son, Prince Michael II, 7." (NYT) I gotta wonder about someone who would name two sons after himself in one generation. Maybe it was creative, but it looks like rank narcissism to me. A |
|
01 Jul 09 - 04:00 PM (#2669160) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Tug the Cox The presumption of the Law is INNOCENT until proved guilty. What were most of the posts above trying to establish that isn't encapsulated in that vital mplank of a just judicial system? |
|
01 Jul 09 - 05:13 PM (#2669230) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Even with the Scottish "non proven" verdict, the presumption of innocence applies, since the charge has not been proved. A finding of "not guilty" in the Scottish context goes a step further, and is effectively a finding that, not merely is the defendant presumed innocent, but that the court has determined that they have also been proved innocent. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 06:46 PM (#2669286) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Smokey. Innocent or guilty? No idea really - not guilty I suspect, but I'd eat my own leg rather than let my child spend time at his house.. |
|
01 Jul 09 - 06:55 PM (#2669296) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: s&r I see that there are plans to rebroadcast the interview with MJ and Martin Bashir. I hope the family fight this: my view of the broadcast is that it shoved a naive immature person being pictured in a poor light by a publicity seeking journalistic machine. I thought it indefensible and heavily polarised towards the scandalous view. Stu |
|
02 Jul 09 - 04:45 PM (#2670083) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: kendall We can split hairs until Hell freezes over. I know the legal meaning of innocent, I also know the moral meaning. Enough already, I'm sick to death of all this pissing and moaning about this guy when real heros are ignored. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 08:33 PM (#2670225) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: M.Ted Again, for all who missed it--the "innocence" claimed here has to do with the rumor that Jordan Chandler, who made a sworn statement in a lawsuit filed in 1993 that Jackson assaulted him, admitted that his accusations were a hoax. That story, however, seems to be a hoax itself. |
|
02 Jul 09 - 08:45 PM (#2670231) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: meself What about the story that his sister renounced her denunciation of MJ's "criminal activities" with children? Anyone know if that's true? |
|
03 Jul 09 - 03:13 AM (#2670360) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: M.Ted The standard attribution is that she retracted the characterization of Michael as a pedophile, but I can't find an source for it--I sort of think I remember hearing it on one of the entertainment shows, but that's not exactly a citation-- |
|
03 Jul 09 - 05:40 PM (#2670999) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: goatfell i agree with kendall |
|
03 Jul 09 - 05:44 PM (#2671005) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: DougR I heard on the radio the other day that MJ spent about 20 million dollars settling that case against him. The money supposedly went to the plaintiffs. Any truth to that? DougR |
|
03 Jul 09 - 06:40 PM (#2671054) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: olddude Me, I don't know and never will. I do know he certainly was a very troubled soul and it was very sad that he had to die early. I think way too many people took advantage of someone who was obviously troubled and unstable. The child thing, I would like to think no he didn't do anything wrong ... no one can truly be certain but the accuser saying that does support the idea that MJ was the one who was abused |
|
03 Jul 09 - 07:14 PM (#2671085) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Bill D "...money supposedly went to the plaintiffs. " Exact amount not clear, but in that LONG documentary/interview..(which has been re-broadcast about 9 times in the last week)..Jackson admitted that he paid some money rather than drag it all out. Of course, this proves nothing...but the entire program sure clarifies a lot about MJ and his strange life. (Just watching him go 'shopping' in Las Vegas is enlightening) |
|
03 Jul 09 - 07:17 PM (#2671088) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: meself I watched a documentary on PBS about a week ago, made some years back. The commentator and several people he interviewed - people who were close to MJ or journalists who had been following his story - stated that he paid 22 million to the family of his first accuser, to settle out of court. It was also stated - again, by several of these people - that he paid off a number of other families, and in fact went through a great deal of his fortune that way. His sister in her public statement said, "I've seen the cheques". It's still not proof, and I've been fooled by very convincing documentaries in the past - but ... |
|
03 Jul 09 - 07:36 PM (#2671093) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Stilly River Sage Amos, think George Foreman. Kendall, Not guilty, by law is not the same as innocent. OJ was found not guilty but he sure as hell is not innocent: The jury didn't convict him in the criminal trial, but they nailed him in the civil trial. The difference between the O.J. trial and the Michael Jackson trial is a preponderance of evidence. There's no way that family of extortionists could take their case to a civil court. They let the criminal court do their dirty work, hoping for a settlement. It wasn't going to work again when they had to pay the bills to bring a civil case against Jackson. Amazing how people abuse the criminal justice system--all around. SRS |
|
04 Jul 09 - 06:26 PM (#2671672) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: McGrath of Harlow Twenty two million dollars sounds an awful lot to pay out - but for Jackson it was small change, so it's impossible to read that much into it. |
|
04 Jul 09 - 06:59 PM (#2671698) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Georgiansilver I would suspect that in the first accusation... MJ's lawyers will have advised him to pay up just to save any embarrassment.... he could afford to after all!! and any public knowledge would be damaging whether the accusation was true or false....... what would you have advised him to do... either way???? |
|
04 Jul 09 - 09:34 PM (#2671758) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Peter K (Fionn) I always find it hard to understand how lynchings could have flourished in a civilised 20th-century democracy, then a Kendall comes along.... |
|
05 Jul 09 - 02:51 AM (#2671848) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Just to set the record straight over what La Toya said about her brother... Taken from here: By James Montgomery "LaToya Jackson has something she wants to tell her little brother Michael. Unfortunately, she's not going to let the rest of us in on what she's going to say. "It's a subject I can't touch on at the moment, and I would love to," she said. "But he knows my heart. I have always been with him in my heart. He knows everything that's happened, and he knows the influence of somebody else who made me do something against my will. Michael knew it was against my will, and my family knew I didn't want to do what I did, but I couldn't say no." What she "did" was publicly speak out against her brother, back in 1993 when he was first facing accusations of child molestation. She drove a wedge between herself and the entire Jackson clan when she accused Michael of paying hush money to the parents of his accusers, and charged that he would stay in his room for days on end with young boys. Her then-husband and manager, Jack Gordon, drove the wedge even deeper when he claimed that Michael had threatened LaToya for speaking out against him, going so far as to claim that Michael would pay to have LaToya killed if she ever returned to California. Maybe she's going to offer profuse apologies to Michael, because now LaToya is singing a different tune. She claims that "it's very important for everybody to support [Michael]" and that the entire family is now united in the endeavor. "We're all behind him 1,000 percent. And he knows the support is there," she said. "The public hears so much that's not true. I don't think you guys really know what goes on in the real realm of the family. No one knows just how close we are." She also is finally free of Gordon, whom she divorced in 1997. Though she is careful not to mention him by name (referring to the whole matter as "a touchy subject to talk about"), it's clear that she thinks Gordon influenced and controlled much of her life, and that he forced her to make a host of ill-advised career choices, including those claims against her brother. "I was in a relationship that I chose not to be in, and I didn't know how to get away from it, as far as management and the whole bit," she said. "To get away from something that powerful and negative you have to clean house. You can't just run away from it. I had to get rid of all the negative people that surrounded me. I had to get rid of all the cancer." In the years following the divorce, LaToya pretty much disappeared. She claims she didn't know what to do with her life, that her self-confidence had been destroyed by years and years of public criticism. She was tired of being the butt of so many jokes, and was afraid to sing again. But slowly, she began writing new songs and going out to clubs, watching people dance and creating an alter-ego for herself. "I was at a club and I kind of disguised myself. I wore a suit and a moustache and a goatee. Everybody thought I was a guy," she said. "Actually everybody thought I was Michael. They didn't know if I was a girl or a guy." And the character development didn't end with dress-up. LaToya began answering to the name "Toy," her childhood nickname. And she kept the moniker when she sent her first new song, "Just Wanna Dance," to club DJs. "As LaToya, I knew people wouldn't give my music a proper listen, because of the stigma that comes with my name," she said. "But under a fictitious name, people would listen to my music and give it a chance. So we marketed my first single as a European artist named 'Toy.' And no one associated it with LaToya Jackson." And club DJs began playing the song. Jackson was so inspired by the song's success (it reached as high as #13 on the Billboard Hot Dance/ Club Music chart) that she began recording an entire album, much of it based on her divorce, the reuniting of her family and her returning confidence. The album, due later this year, is a document of her past 10 years, and it's called, appropriately, Startin' Over. "No one has a clue what I went through. No one can possibly imagine," she said. "It was absolutely awful. And for so long there was nothing I could do about it. It went on for a decade. But finally I was able to start over. I'm living a positive life now. I got to start life all over again." |
|
05 Jul 09 - 12:09 PM (#2672070) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: meself So - she doesn't deny that MJ had been involved in "criminal activities" (her words) with boys. |
|
05 Jul 09 - 12:46 PM (#2672096) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Why are you twisting it? She says that she can't say exactly what she wants to at the moment, more than likely because of the man she was married to at the time, who would probably sue her. Summat's going on there, that's for sure. Take a step back for a minute. Imagine that someone hurled that accusation at you, and you were then surrounded by people who enjoyed every moment of telling the world you were guilty, when in actual fact....you weren't. How would it make you feel? Having to live the rest of your life with that image? If you read Lisa Marie Presley's blog, in one of the threads on here, that I put on a few days back, you'll see her saying that SHE was the one who told Michael to settle out of court, because he was falling apart. Shortly after that he became addicted to painkillers, and probably loads of other things too. Imagine that he was innocent...but had to live the rest of his life being labelled a pervert. And Martin Bashir's interview. What strikes me as strange about that is...WHY would anyone who WAS a paedophile sit there calmly talking about how they have kids round etc..etc...? Nope, I'm sticking to the instinct I've always had about this, and that's that Michael only wanted to be surrounded by children, and those adults who, like him, remained child-like, through having their own childhoods stolen, such as Elizabeth Taylor and Mcauley Culkin.. Children never hurt him, adults did. For Chrissake, the lad was hung upside down and beaten by his father if he didn't get his act right! Geez! And you all expect him to be 'normal' after starting out his life like that? Why the fooook was his father never prosecuted for that? How the hell can he still be around that family? Dare to hold his head up? And WHY did Michael's mother never protect him from that man? Why didn't she divorce him then take her children as far from him as possible? I still believe that he was an innocent man. A mixed up, muddled up man who'd lost track of reality and normality, because he'd NEVER known either. |
|
05 Jul 09 - 01:04 PM (#2672109) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: meself What am I twisting? The woman stood up in front of the world's press and denounced her own brother as a child molester. If this is supposed to be a recanting of what she had said before, it is extremely weak, evasive, and unconvincing. Nowhere does she say that he is not a child molester, and nowhere does she say that she was lying. |
|
05 Jul 09 - 05:22 PM (#2672245) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: gnu There is no proof that he molested anyone. Here's a news flash. He's dead. You can all rest easy now that you and your children are safe from the boogie man. |
|
06 Jul 09 - 12:20 AM (#2672432) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: meself Thank you for your contribution. |
|
06 Jul 09 - 04:52 AM (#2672514) Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT?!!! From: Lox Kendall isn't talking about lynching anyone, he's expessing his doubts which anyone is entiotled to have regardless of a verdict. His only mistake is that his arguments can be used the other way equally well. I don't know if MJ was a child molester or not. He was acquitted in a court which examined the case and the evidence with much closer scrutiny and much better evidence than we have. However, if he were alive I would never leave him alone with my daughter on the basis of his actions with the baby on the balcony. These actions show a high degree of instability and make it clear that he was a risk to childrens safety even if he didn't abuse them. |