Did Michael Do It?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Josh

Lifer
Mar 20, 2000
10,917
0
0
http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

Too long to copy and paste. But, that's an interesting article to read for those who believe in his guilt and those who believe in his innocence.

There's an MJ thread you'll have to use since this one has degenerated into a LikeLinus/nakedfrog "I know you are, but what am I?"

Sr Moderator allisolm
 
jonks

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Thousands and thousands of children alone with this guy for over 20 years and only one trial where every witness was seriously compromised. Watched his special with Martin Basheer again this week. The guy is an eccentric who idolizes children in a non-sexual way. He's completely weird and immature, but I see zero facts he's a pedo, and unlike the catholic church where thousands have come out about their abuse, we've seen zip against Jacko. He couldn't possibly have paid them all off. So I say shens.
 
Kirby

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Thousands and thousands of children alone with this guy for over 20 years and only one trial where every witness was seriously compromised. Watched his special with Martin Basheer again this week. The guy is an eccentric who idolizes children in a non-sexual way. He's completely weird and immature, but I see zero facts he's a pedo, and unlike the catholic church where thousands have come out about their abuse, we've seen zip against Jacko. He couldn't possibly have paid them all off. So I say shens.
Click to expand...

I'd still trust a Catholic priest being alone with a kid over MJ.
 
AstroManLuca

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: jonks
Thousands and thousands of children alone with this guy for over 20 years and only one trial where every witness was seriously compromised. Watched his special with Martin Basheer again this week. The guy is an eccentric who idolizes children in a non-sexual way. He's completely weird and immature, but I see zero facts he's a pedo, and unlike the catholic church where thousands have come out about their abuse, we've seen zip against Jacko. He couldn't possibly have paid them all off. So I say shens.
Click to expand...

I'd still trust a Catholic priest being alone with a kid over MJ.
Click to expand...

What about a former Catholic priest convicted of child molestation? In that case, you know he did it. With MJ, you just think he did.
 
P

Porter21

Golden Member
Oct 4, 2004
1,912
0
0
I'll def. be finding something better to do with my time then watching the ceremonies tonight.
 
jonks

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: jonks
Thousands and thousands of children alone with this guy for over 20 years and only one trial where every witness was seriously compromised. Watched his special with Martin Basheer again this week. The guy is an eccentric who idolizes children in a non-sexual way. He's completely weird and immature, but I see zero facts he's a pedo, and unlike the catholic church where thousands have come out about their abuse, we've seen zip against Jacko. He couldn't possibly have paid them all off. So I say shens.
Click to expand...

I'd still trust a Catholic priest being alone with a kid over MJ.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. The kid might get infected by religion and then his head would be screwed up for life :)
 
amdhunter

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,332
249
106
Who cares if he did it. He was rich and famous, which entitles him to do whatever the hell he wants.
 
GoPackGo

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,513
580
126
I think it was the first accusation that truly destroyed him.

There is tons of evidence the kid and the dad were in it for the money.

Even the mom said he didnt do it.

So really in the 90s he was ruined. I think thats when the depression and drug use really kicked into high gear.

If he was this big molester, than you would think there would be more people coming forward looking for justice and not a paycheck.

If Paycheck > Justice then claim==fraud.
 
Kirby

Kirby

Lifer
Apr 10, 2006
12,028
2
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: jonks
Thousands and thousands of children alone with this guy for over 20 years and only one trial where every witness was seriously compromised. Watched his special with Martin Basheer again this week. The guy is an eccentric who idolizes children in a non-sexual way. He's completely weird and immature, but I see zero facts he's a pedo, and unlike the catholic church where thousands have come out about their abuse, we've seen zip against Jacko. He couldn't possibly have paid them all off. So I say shens.
Click to expand...

I'd still trust a Catholic priest being alone with a kid over MJ.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. The kid might get infected by religion :)
Click to expand...

As opposed to a white woman's penis? :p
 
jonks

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
But yes, he was guilty, and no, he wasn't framed. You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.
Click to expand...

If you have the money to burn and you'd prefer to avoid a public trial going on for months dragging you through the mud regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent when you can make it all just go away with a pen stroke, then yes, yes you do pay the money even if you're innocent. In fact, corporations do this routinely when the costs of litigation and the PR hit are judged to be greater than the settlement offer.

Reportedly he settled one case this way, and was acquitted in a criminal trial for allegedly abusing another kid because every witness was compromised. So either he molested two kids, or he molested hundreds or thousands of kids none of who have come forward, or he molested no kids. These are not equally plausible scenarios. And read the quotes from the father who got recorded on a phone call. He doesn't say anything about molesting, it's all about money.
 
Fritzo

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
I know I'm going to be in the minority on ATOT, but I'm entitled to my opinion so neener-neener-neener :p

I never thought that Jackson was guilty of any sort of molestation. I think he had a psychological condition called "arrested development" where he never matured mentally- this would also explain a lot of his other bizzare behavior. Lawyers and the times caught up with him, and there was too much money to be spread around, so out come the charges.
 
JulesMaximus

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,544
924
126
Originally posted by: Fritzo
I know I'm going to be in the minority on ATOT, but I'm entitled to my opinion so neener-neener-neener :p

I never thought that Jackson was guilty of any sort of molestation. I think he had a psychological condition called "arrested development" where he never matured mentally- this would also explain a lot of his other bizzare behavior. Lawyers and the times caught up with him, and there was too much money to be spread around, so out come the charges.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:I've begun to lean toward that conclusion as well and I'm definitely not happy that he died so suddenly and at such a young age.
 
L

LikeLinus

Lifer
Jul 25, 2001
11,518
670
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
But yes, he was guilty, and no, he wasn't framed. You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.
Click to expand...

If you have the money to burn and you'd prefer to avoid a public trial going on for months dragging you through the mud regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent when you can make it all just go away with a pen stroke, then yes, yes you do pay the money even if you're innocent. In fact, corporations do this routinely when the costs of litigation and the PR hit are judged to be greater than the settlement offer.

Reportedly he settled one case this way, and was acquitted in a criminal trial for allegedly abusing another kid because every witness was compromised. So either he molested two kids, or he molested hundreds or thousands of kids none of who have come forward, or he molested no kids. These are not equally plausible scenarios. And read the quotes from the father who got recorded on a phone call. He doesn't say anything about molesting, it's all about money.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have to be pretty freaking stupid or nieve to believe that Michael didn't have a thing for young boys. Ask yourself this question, why was it mostly young boys he invited into his house? Why does a grown man go on national TV and say it's ok to sleep with young boys in the same bed. Why does a grown man also tell on national TV that he's given young boys wine? Why on earth would ANY grown man want to share his bed with children and invite them into his own...even after being accused of molestation!!

Get a clue.
 
FelixDeCat

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
30,706
2,609
126
Originally posted by: nkgreen
Originally posted by: jonks
Thousands and thousands of children alone with this guy for over 20 years and only one trial where every witness was seriously compromised. Watched his special with Martin Basheer again this week. The guy is an eccentric who idolizes children in a non-sexual way. He's completely weird and immature, but I see zero facts he's a pedo, and unlike the catholic church where thousands have come out about their abuse, we've seen zip against Jacko. He couldn't possibly have paid them all off. So I say shens.
Click to expand...

I'd still trust a Catholic priest being alone with a kid over MJ.
Click to expand...

What about a 30 year old atheist pop star alone in bed with a naked boy?
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,674
30,984
146
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
Originally posted by: Josh
http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

Too long to copy and paste. But, that's an interesting article to read for those who believe in his guilt and those who believe in his innocence.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, it's against copyright law to copy/paste an entire article.


But yes, he was guilty, and no, he wasn't framed. You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.
Click to expand...

You also don't accept that much money if you care about justice/truth.

How convenient to ignore both realities.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,674
30,984
146
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
But yes, he was guilty, and no, he wasn't framed. You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.
Click to expand...

If you have the money to burn and you'd prefer to avoid a public trial going on for months dragging you through the mud regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent when you can make it all just go away with a pen stroke, then yes, yes you do pay the money even if you're innocent. In fact, corporations do this routinely when the costs of litigation and the PR hit are judged to be greater than the settlement offer.

Reportedly he settled one case this way, and was acquitted in a criminal trial for allegedly abusing another kid because every witness was compromised. So either he molested two kids, or he molested hundreds or thousands of kids none of who have come forward, or he molested no kids. These are not equally plausible scenarios. And read the quotes from the father who got recorded on a phone call. He doesn't say anything about molesting, it's all about money.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you have to be pretty freaking stupid or nieve to believe that Michael didn't have a thing for young boys. Ask yourself this question, why was it mostly young boys he invited into his house? Why does a grown man go on national TV and say it's ok to sleep with young boys in the same bed. Why does a grown man also tell on national TV that he's given young boys wine? Why on earth would ANY grown man want to share his bed with children and invite them into his own...even after being accused of molestation!!

Get a clue.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never met a "grown man" with compromised mental maturity. There is more evidence pointing to Jackson's fragile and rather immature social development than there is to accusations of molestation.

You simply prefer to assume, rather than know. Maybe based on some sort of hatred or distrust?

Point to any facts that clearly show molestation on his part, and I'd be willing to believe you. Problem is, no facts have ever arisen from his accusers. Nothing but accusations.

The guy was weird, for sure, but you and others make the oft-repeated mistake of taking the least probable approach towards explaining his behavior rather than the simpler one, linked to factual and biographical data regarding his upbringing.

None of us knew Michael Jackson. We only ever saw or knew him through a filter.
I'm sure you fools will continue hating based on accusations, rather than simply accept the fact that he did more good in this world than any of us will ever hope to accomplish.

Grow up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom