Did Michael Do It?

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Point to any facts that clearly show molestation on his part"

You mean other than the TWO accusations already against him in the past? There is no way to "clearly" show molestation without video or audio to back it up. It's between the boys and him. He's been accused of it in the past. He's admitted to giving children wine and sleeping with them in the same bed.

So you can cry all you want about us not having proof, but there's certainly more than enough evidence to support my theory vs. yours.

Grow up.

EDIT: This doesn't have anything to do with hatred for Michael or believing the media or whatever kind of bullshit spin you want to put on it. I grew up with his music in the 80's. The problem is he was a very sick man and I believe it's obvious he had a thing for small boys.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.

:thumbsup:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.

:thumbsup:

you don't accept a buyout and let a child molester walk away to molest another day if you're any kind of father.

 

[SonnyDaze]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
MAKE THE BAD MEN STOP WITH THE FUCKING MICHAEL JACKSON THREADS

:laugh:

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.

:thumbsup:

you don't accept a buyout and let a child molester walk away to molest another day if you're any kind of father.

unfortunately, for 20 million, there are a lot of those people in this world.

 

[Wheezer]

Lets say for the sake of argument MJ was a child in a grown mans body, these sleep overs were not ever intended to be sexual in nature....fine I can understand that....but I was also 12 and when I was 12 I played doctor with the girl next door.

So is it possible that on at least one occasion a sleep over involved a game of doctor that was "misunderstood"......being a 35 year old man that kinda makes it a felony.

I heard MJ say over and over again "I would not hurt a child, I love children"....gee isn't that what all pedophiles say?

where there is smoke there's fire.


oh well the creepy eccentric singer is dead.....if he's innocent RIP......if he's guilty...rot in hell.

 

[magomago]

after reading the article I'd now say no. I had no idea before. If the article is true then DAYYYYUMM I feel sorry for MJ for getting jammed like that.

Originally posted by: Wheezer
Lets say for the sake of argument MJ was a child in a grown mans body, these sleep overs were not ever intended to be sexual in nature....fine I can understand that....but I was also 12 and when I was 12 I played doctor with the girl next door.

So is it possible that on at least one occasion a sleep over involved a game of doctor that was "misunderstood"......being a 35 year old man that kinda makes it a felony.

I heard MJ say over and over again "I would not hurt a child, I love children"....gee isn't that what all pedophiles say?

where there is smoke there's fire.


oh well the creepy eccentric singer is dead.....if he's innocent RIP......if he's guilty...rot in hell.

So if you read the article:

The sole allegations leveled against Jackson, then, remain those made by one youth, and only after the boy had been give a potent hypnotic drug, leaving him susceptible to the power of suggestion.

?I found the case suspicious,? says Dr. Underwager, the Minneapolis psychiatrist, ?precisely because the only evidence came from one boy. That would be highly unlikely. Actual pedophiles have an average of 240 victims in their lifetime. It?s a progressive disorder. They?re never satisfied.?

 

[Gothgar]

Originally posted by: joesmoke

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
We definitely needed another MJ thread.

btw do you know his SSN number?

you fucking win

 

[Pollock]

Who?

 

[TheSlamma]

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.

I also note that the kids with nothing to gain by a lawsuit like Mccully and the Corey's testified he was a good person, but the poor saps with a lot to gain wanted some $$$$

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.

:thumbsup:

you don't accept a buyout and let a child molester walk away to molest another day if you're any kind of father.

unfortunately, for 20 million, there are a lot of those people in this world.

so you're the type to rationalize a point any way you want, so long as it fits your version of the story.

This is clear.

 

[DayLaPaul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEHVR9Hj_b0

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
You don't pay off that much money if you are innocent.

:thumbsup:

you don't accept a buyout and let a child molester walk away to molest another day if you're any kind of father.

unfortunately, for 20 million, there are a lot of those people in this world.

so you're the type to rationalize a point any way you want, so long as it fits your version of the story.

This is clear.

People kill other people for much less than 20 million. I have no doubt that a parent would rather take 20 million, get their kid counselling, and provide for themselves and their child and their grandchildren and more for the rest of their lives than prosecute.

Parents in this country are so far from model parents it's disgusting and you see it in the news every day.

 

[Baked]

If I had that kinda money, I would be switching east euro and eurasian hotties weekly. But no, I don't think he molested any of those kids at the neverland. When you have that kinda fame and money, there will always be haters and people making shit up to get your money. It doesn't help that he had a thing for young children as his playmates. Sigh...

 

[DamnRena]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: zinfamous

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Point to any facts that clearly show molestation on his part"

You mean other than the TWO accusations already against him in the past? There is no way to "clearly" show molestation without video or audio to back it up. It's between the boys and him. He's been accused of it in the past. He's admitted to giving children wine and sleeping with them in the same bed.

So you can cry all you want about us not having proof, but there's certainly more than enough evidence to support my theory vs. yours.

Grow up.

EDIT: This doesn't have anything to do with hatred for Michael or believing the media or whatever kind of bullshit spin you want to put on it. I grew up with his music in the 80's. The problem is he was a very sick man and I believe it's obvious he had a thing for small boys.

Alright, you try growing up in his place and doing what he did and we we'll see how you turn out.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
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 does a grown man go on national TV and say it's ok to sleep with young boys in the same bed.
Get a clue.

Indeed. Obviously a man who feared molestation charges would admit to sleeping with young boys on national tv. Oh wait, that makes no sense. What would make sense is if he saw nothing wrong with spending time with children and that he was very open about finding children's innocence preferable to spending time with adults who tend to be judgmental and critical of the slightest hint of nonconformity or otherness.

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
"Point to any facts that clearly show molestation on his part"

You mean other than the TWO accusations already against him in the past? He's been accused of it in the past. He's admitted to giving children wine and sleeping with them in the same bed.

So you can cry all you want about us not having proof, but there's certainly more than enough evidence to support my theory vs. yours.

Grow up.

0 for 2 buddy. If a high school teacher or other average individual faces multiple accusations of sexual abuse, there is a strong possibility that something is going on. But when an eccentric billionaire who has spent incredible amounts of time over the past 20 years with tens of thousands of children around the planet, oftentimes alone and overnight, and the only two accusations to come out of it are one highly dubious civil suit where the father is recorded saying he was jealous of the attention his son gave to MJ because of his money and glamour, and a criminal trial where every witness was seriously compromised including the accuser which resulted in an acquittal, then the full evidence weighs very strongly against your interpretation.

Was MJ weird, strange, eccentric, childlike, enjoy spending time with kids, do activities with children that are against the norm and would be considered inappropriate for just about any grown man? No question. But you point to TWO weak allegations as being factual indicators of guilt? Given his life, vast wealth, and the opportunities for rampant abuse, that is anorexic evidence.

 

[DamnRena]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
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 does a grown man go on national TV and say it's ok to sleep with young boys in the same bed.
Get a clue.

Indeed. Obviously a man who feared molestation charges would admit to sleeping with young boys on national tv. Oh wait, that makes no sense. What would make sense is if he saw nothing wrong with spending time with children and that he was very open about finding children's innocence preferable to spending time with adults who tend to be judgmental and critical of the slightest hint of nonconformity or otherness.

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
"Point to any facts that clearly show molestation on his part"

You mean other than the TWO accusations already against him in the past? He's been accused of it in the past. He's admitted to giving children wine and sleeping with them in the same bed.

So you can cry all you want about us not having proof, but there's certainly more than enough evidence to support my theory vs. yours.

Grow up.

0 for 2 buddy. If a high school teacher or other average individual faces multiple accusations of sexual abuse, there is a strong possibility that something is going on. But when an eccentric billionaire who has spent incredible amounts of time over the past 20 years with tens of thousands of children around the planet, oftentimes alone and overnight, and the only two accusations to come out of it are one highly dubious civil suit where the father is recorded saying he was jealous of the attention his son gave to MJ because of his money and glamour, and a criminal trial where every witness was seriously compromised including the accuser which resulted in an acquittal, then the full evidence weighs very strongly against your interpretation.

Was MJ weird, strange, eccentric, childlike, enjoy spending time with kids, do activities with children that are against the norm and would be considered inappropriate for just about any grown man? No question. But you point to TWO weak allegations as being factual indicators of guilt? Given his life, vast wealth, and the opportunities for rampant abuse, that is anorexic evidence.

You go Jonks tell these FAGS that these are just allegations! Not proof but allegations.

 

[eits]

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.

how could a kid accurately describe mj's penis without seeing it?

 

[Kirby]

The real question is how many of you would have sex with MJ for $20 million?

 

[nageov3t]

how could a kid accurately describe mj's penis without seeing it?

what's even to describe? they all look alike to me and as long as you say it's cut you have a high likelihood of being correct in the US.

 

[LikeLinus]

You have to love the MJ fanboys. They are in such denial.

I love how you call someone a "i love you", while defending a MAN who was sleeping with young BOYS and inviting them over to his house and giving them wine. The ironing in this thread is just awesome.

I call them like I see them. It's my opinion (which is obviously shared by millions of people) and i don't give a crap if you like it or share it. Attack me all you want.

He was not "weird or strange". He was a very sick person who was a drug addict, provided alcohol to minors, sleeping with young boys and just an all around messed up person. His music was great, but he clearly had serious mental issues and a taste for young boys.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that none of his children are his and that he never consummated either one of his "marriages". Sounds straight to me! The numbers just don't add up.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
You have to love the MJ fanboys. They are in such denial.

I love how you call someone a "i love you", while defending a MAN who was sleeping with young BOYS and inviting them over to his house and giving them wine. The ironing in this thread is just awesome.

I call them like I see them. It's my opinion (which is obviously shared by millions of people) and i don't give a crap if you like it or share it. Attack me all you want.

He was not "weird or strange". He was a very sick person who was a drug addict, provided alcohol to minors, sleeping with young boys and just an all around messed up person. His music was great, but he clearly had serious mental issues and a taste for young boys.

Not a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty" eh?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: loki8481

how could a kid accurately describe mj's penis without seeing it?

what's even to describe? they all look alike to me and as long as you say it's cut you have a high likelihood of being correct in the US.

he apparently had a birthmark or mole or something on it that the kid actually described.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
You have to love the MJ fanboys. They are in such denial.

I love how you call someone a "i love you", while defending a MAN who was sleeping with young BOYS and inviting them over to his house and giving them wine. The ironing in this thread is just awesome.

I call them like I see them. It's my opinion (which is obviously shared by millions of people) and i don't give a crap if you like it or share it. Attack me all you want.

He was not "weird or strange". He was a very sick person who was a drug addict, provided alcohol to minors, sleeping with young boys and just an all around messed up person. His music was great, but he clearly had serious mental issues and a taste for young boys.

Not a big fan of "innocent until proven guilty" eh?

It's called an opinion. Please take your time to re-read what I wrote above. I bolded the important part. You may want to use a dictionary as well. I do not need proof of guilt to form a logical opinion.

OJ is innocent. The courts told me so!!

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: DamnRena


You go Jonks tell these FAGS that these are just allegations! Not proof but allegations.

Have you seen what happened to the other kid that was included in the complaints ? He said nothing happened and look at where he is now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Robson

One gets $20 mill the other gets a career in the very business MJ was part of.