Talk about grand standing......sheese the guy is dead!!

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
There's never been any evidence that Jacko molested anyone, yet there's been hard evidence against his accusers (that they made up the allegations to get paid). This Congressman is missing brain cells to publicly speak badly about someone who was never convicted of anything, good luck getting re-elected moran.

If he didn't molest anyone, why would he settle for $20 million?

I have always wondered that, if the parents actually believed MJ molested the child, why did they settle?

Because they know they can't win $20 million for emotional and psychological distress in court due to a random guy "supposedly" touching their kid's nut sack?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
There's never been any evidence that Jacko molested anyone, yet there's been hard evidence against his accusers (that they made up the allegations to get paid). This Congressman is missing brain cells to publicly speak badly about someone who was never convicted of anything, good luck getting re-elected moran.

If he didn't molest anyone, why would he settle for $20 million?

becasue he had more money than most small countries and it made the issue go away didnt it?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
There's never been any evidence that Jacko molested anyone, yet there's been hard evidence against his accusers (that they made up the allegations to get paid). This Congressman is missing brain cells to publicly speak badly about someone who was never convicted of anything, good luck getting re-elected moran.

He admitted in a documentary that he shared his bed with his young guests.

the same documentary where, a sentence after saying that, he clarified that his young guests slept in his bed while he slept on the floor?

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
There's never been any evidence that Jacko molested anyone, yet there's been hard evidence against his accusers (that they made up the allegations to get paid). This Congressman is missing brain cells to publicly speak badly about someone who was never convicted of anything, good luck getting re-elected moran.

He admitted in a documentary that he shared his bed with his young guests.

So?.....Please.
I share my bed with my best friend when he comes over for Christmas/New Year, and Thanksgiving weekend.
I share my bed with my younger brother when he comes for vacation and my younger cousins when they decide to do a sleep over.

There is a difference between sharing a bed and touching a nut sack.

 

[OCGuy]

Face it, if you are defending him, you are probably just a fan in denial. That is fine, but dont think that everyone else who isnt mesmerized by a "moonwalk" doesnt see through it.

Worshiping a druggie pedo due to popular music is an interesting social concept. I think there should be some studies done.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Face it, if you are defending him, you are probably just a fan in denial. That is fine, but dont think that everyone else who isnt mesmerized by a "moonwalk" doesnt see through it.

Worshiping a druggie pedo due to popular music is an interesting social concept. I think there should be some studies done.

Round up all those Elvis fans before you start the study.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Face it, if you are defending him, you are probably just a fan in denial. That is fine, but dont think that everyone else who isnt mesmerized by a "moonwalk" doesnt see through it.

Worshiping a druggie pedo due to popular music is an interesting social concept. I think there should be some studies done.

It is sickening that people get so crazy over MJ, yet when someone dies in a war, or someone gets killed actually trying to help people, society just passes it off in a news bite.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


According to a jury of his peers and in the eyes of the law regarding the murder of his ex-wife and her companion, yes.

Do you have a problem with our judicial system and wish that it be changed to more of a public opinion/populist type of option?

OJ was found guilty in civil court for the deaths. Just shows how screwed up the court system is. One branch can charge you with the deaths while the other says you are innocent.

No, he was not found "innocent", he was found "not guilty", and those two are not the same. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than for a civil case. According to the jury, the prosecutors could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was the killer, and another jury concluded that there was a "preponderance of the evidence" that he was.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
There's never been any evidence that Jacko molested anyone, yet there's been hard evidence against his accusers (that they made up the allegations to get paid). This Congressman is missing brain cells to publicly speak badly about someone who was never convicted of anything, good luck getting re-elected moran.

If he didn't molest anyone, why would he settle for $20 million?

TO MAKE IT STOP! maybe he wanted to move on with his life and knew these people werent going to stop.

Yeah, because if someone accuses me of something so heinous, I just go ahead and pay millions of dollars to "make it go away" instead of getting my day in court to vindicate myself and refute the false accusation :roll: The payment was not an admission of guilt in the legal sense, but in the common sense world, it most certainly was as close as you can get.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


According to a jury of his peers and in the eyes of the law regarding the murder of his ex-wife and her companion, yes.

Do you have a problem with our judicial system and wish that it be changed to more of a public opinion/populist type of option?

OJ was found guilty in civil court for the deaths. Just shows how screwed up the court system is. One branch can charge you with the deaths while the other says you are innocent.

No, he was not found "innocent", he was found "not guilty", and those two are not the same. The burden of proof is much higher for a criminal case than for a civil case. According to the jury, the prosecutors could not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was the killer, and another jury concluded that there was a "preponderance of the evidence" that he was.

And you don't see a problem with that ?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Face it, if you are defending him, you are probably just a fan in denial. That is fine, but dont think that everyone else who isnt mesmerized by a "moonwalk" doesnt see through it.

Worshiping a druggie pedo due to popular music is an interesting social concept. I think there should be some studies done.

Nice of you to join us Congressman King!

 

[Josh]

Did Michael Do It?

The untold story of the events that brought down a superstar:

http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html


An interesting read.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
There's never been any evidence that Jacko molested anyone, yet there's been hard evidence against his accusers (that they made up the allegations to get paid). This Congressman is missing brain cells to publicly speak badly about someone who was never convicted of anything, good luck getting re-elected moran.

If he didn't molest anyone, why would he settle for $20 million?

I have always wondered that, if the parents actually believed MJ molested the child, why did they settle?

Because they know they can't win $20 million for emotional and psychological distress in court due to a random guy "supposedly" touching their kid's nut sack?

You guys don't get it. If I were the parent, I would press forward until I had his butt in jail if i thought he was actually guilty. How could you put a price on your child like that? The parents are very suspect in the whole thing. Didn't they "rent" their child out to MJ to be his little friend? How are you going to trust parents like that and take their word?

Besides, MJ was asexual.. there was nothing sexual about him.

Again, i am not an MJ fan, but I don't see the need to make someone out to be a criminal if it isn't a certainty. People assumed b/c he is a weirdo that made it very likely that he was a pedophile. That really isn't fair. Of course it hardly matters now that he is dead..

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: spittledip


You guys don't get it. If I were the parent, I would press forward until I had his butt in jail if i thought he was actually guilty. How could you put a price on your child like that? The parents are very suspect in the whole thing. Didn't they "rent" their child out to MJ to be his little friend? How are you going to trust parents like that and take their word?

Besides, MJ was asexual.. there was nothing sexual about him.

Again, i am not an MJ fan, but I don't see the need to make someone out to be a criminal if it isn't a certainty. People assumed b/c he is a weirdo that made it very likely that he was a pedophile. That really isn't fair. Of course it hardly matters now that he is dead..

LOL! Because you are somehow above taking $20mil in hush money, that means everyone is!

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: spittledip
You guys don't get it. If I were the parent, I would press forward until I had his butt in jail if i thought he was actually guilty. How could you put a price on your child like that? The parents are very suspect in the whole thing. Didn't they "rent" their child out to MJ to be his little friend? How are you going to trust parents like that and take their word?

Besides, MJ was asexual.. there was nothing sexual about him.

Again, i am not an MJ fan, but I don't see the need to make someone out to be a criminal if it isn't a certainty. People assumed b/c he is a weirdo that made it very likely that he was a pedophile. That really isn't fair. Of course it hardly matters now that he is dead..

What I find very interesting is the fact that if the Plaintiff *KNEW* they had a case against MJ, they would merely have to do what the Goldman family did, get him in Civilian court and hammer him. If it was so certain they'd likely have won and received some money.

Yet why didn't they do this?

Same with me. If I were a parent and I *KNEW* that it was true, nothing would stand in my way of getting criminal and civil judgements. Nothing.

 

[marincounty]

At least MJ had some talent. Rep King is a talentless blowhard -and a terrorist sympathizer.
Text

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

What I find very interesting is the fact that if the Plaintiff *KNEW* they had a case against MJ, they would merely have to do what the Goldman family did, get him in Civilian court and hammer him. If it was so certain they'd likely have won and received some money.

Yet why didn't they do this?

Same with me. If I were a parent and I *KNEW* that it was true, nothing would stand in my way of getting criminal and civil judgements. Nothing.

I think a lot of it has to do with all the outside stuff that came along with bringing the case to court. The media, phone calls, not being able to go in public without being questioned, effect on friends and family. MJ was probably used to that, but the family wasn't.

For me if it had been my kid and I knew it was certain, MJ would be singing a lot higher notes than normal.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


According to a jury of his peers and in the eyes of the law regarding the murder of his ex-wife and her companion, yes.

Do you have a problem with our judicial system and wish that it be changed to more of a public opinion/populist type of option?

OJ was found guilty in civil court for the deaths. Just shows how screwed up the court system is. One branch can charge you with the deaths while the other says you are innocent.

No he wasn't. Civil courts do not decide guilt or innocence. He was found to be liable for their deaths. It may sound like splitting hairs, but it is huge difference.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

What I find very interesting is the fact that if the Plaintiff *KNEW* they had a case against MJ, they would merely have to do what the Goldman family did, get him in Civilian court and hammer him. If it was so certain they'd likely have won and received some money.

Yet why didn't they do this?

Same with me. If I were a parent and I *KNEW* that it was true, nothing would stand in my way of getting criminal and civil judgements. Nothing.

I think a lot of it has to do with all the outside stuff that came along with bringing the case to court. The media, phone calls, not being able to go in public without being questioned, effect on friends and family. MJ was probably used to that, but the family wasn't.

For me if it had been my kid and I knew it was certain, MJ would be singing a lot higher notes than normal.

What if the MJ machine was working full force against you? And you were receiving death threats, etc.? Would you go through with it and probably be hated and harassed forever or take the $20 million? Not an easy choice to make IMO.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong


According to a jury of his peers and in the eyes of the law regarding the murder of his ex-wife and her companion, yes.

Do you have a problem with our judicial system and wish that it be changed to more of a public opinion/populist type of option?

OJ was found guilty in civil court for the deaths. Just shows how screwed up the court system is. One branch can charge you with the deaths while the other says you are innocent.

No he wasn't. Civil courts do not decide guilt or innocence. He was found to be liable for their deaths. It may sound like splitting hairs, but it is huge difference.

Maybe to some it is a huge difference, but it isn't to me. They died because of him and he intended for them to die. To me that is murder and I don't care what a high paid lawyer gets the courts to say.