Michael Jackson [Archive] - TD Talk(Formally Dumb Laws)

MJ_junkie86

May 27th, 2005, 06:50 PM

The M.O. of the vast majority of pedophiles is to exert power over the child through fear, reward, guilt, or other intimidation or persuasion ["Jesus juice"?]. This is never done in the open, or seldom done with witnesses around.

>>>mike has HIS drink in a coke can coz he is scared of flyin and didnt want the kids to see his drink. maybe he called it jesus juice so as not to confuse the kids.
they hav been SEEN STEALIN drink from his wine collection. who is to say that they didnt steal this? after all it wouldnt be the 1st time...

MJ has designed his personal living quarters with many features to ensure his "privacy".

>>> so u tellin me NO other CELEBRATY wants their privacy? do they let their maids or cleaners or staff roam in and out of their private rooms at will?

He has his own personal Disneyland-esque facility. You might say it's because "he was never allowed to have a childhood..." others may see it as the bait for a trap.

>>>so are all the creators of theme parks pedos? is walt disney a pedo? no.
michael lets TERMINALLY ILL children come to the park. these kids DYING wish is to see michael, so he lets them hav their last few days on this earth havin fun at his theme park.

The man is what? 40 years old?? Don't you suppose he's had ample time to "re-experience his childhood" by now?

>>>how can u say that? at 5 yrs old u were playin out wit ur mates, dont workin all hours under the sun in a recording studio or in nightclubs like he way.
him and his brothers had to start off him smoky night clubs, in his book he says that he was watchin a woman sing or somethin on stage, she came off stage and said hello to him, after pullin the mellons outta his top. he was actually a man.
can u imagin the effect on a 5 yr old boy? ALL his life he has worked and missed out on normal things. how can u possibly say things when u hav never experienced them for ur self?
that comment of urs was a stupid comment.

No matter how you dress it up, a grown man sleeping in a locked bedroom and in the same bed as a little boy is just NOT something that normal, thinking guys do.

>>>in a LOCKED bedroom? where did u hear this? gavins brother supposedly SAW mike in the bedroom, so how could it hav been locked?
also IF u'd hav watched the bashire doc, u'd hav seen that even gavin said that MIKE SLEPT ON THE FLOOR.
and i lay in a bed wit my 9 yr old brother, am i a child molester AND commit insest at the saw time? huh.

MJ

MJ_junkie86

May 27th, 2005, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by w1che
Yeah MJ, How is it that you have the facts & we don't? What if you had a son and you let him stay over with me and you later found out I took a shower with him, gave him some booze, then we all set around looking at porn before we went to the same bed? Can I assume that wouldn't go over to well with you?

i hav them coz i can be othered to look at the facts and dont jus take wat i see on the news as the facts.

www.mjni.com (not workin at the min tho)
www.isitscary.com

when did MJ take a shower wit the boy?
the boy stole the booze, people SAW him.
the boy FORCED one of the STAFF to put booze in his milkshake...mike wasnt even there.
why shouldnt mike look at porn? he is a 4 somethin red blooded male like any other.
ALSO people saw the boy lookin at it without MJ even being there. even going so far as to ask one of MJs cousin to watch and wank wit him (the boy). again mike wasnt there.
the same bed? the BOY even admitted mike slept on the floor.

MJ

sinecure

May 28th, 2005, 01:13 AM

And this is what Britain has to look forward to?

Have you met ZenziC? ... she's a like-minded British subject/American.

Hey Zen... can a US citizen actually have dual citizenship?

:question

Serendipity

May 29th, 2005, 08:18 AM

Budding flamewar deleted :hi

Idnew

May 29th, 2005, 12:02 PM

MJ_junkie86
Bonded

Registered: May 2005
Location: beds, UK
Posts: 38

http://www.vitiligosociety.org.uk/index.html
ignorant judgemental wanker.

drs hav confirmed that he has this.
and remember he is in the public light, so wat would u be sayin now if we were talkin about a man who had black and white patches?!
this is also way he has an unbrella in the hot sun.

i had a pic where u can SEE it, but it is too big

MJ

__________________

w1che

May 29th, 2005, 04:48 PM

Quote from Sir-Dip.. Budding flamewar deleted
>>>>>>>>>>>

You just make sure the next time MJ flames someone first it gets deleted right away and you may not be able to do that showing up once a month like you do. She has been pulling that crap since she came on the board so I just thought it was time for someone to put her down a notch..

Thank you for your concern for the board dipper.. :wave

MJ_junkie86

May 29th, 2005, 05:16 PM

excuse me.
some people need a chill pill. if u want me to be nice, why dont u accept that not everyone thinks the same as u.

who cares if u dont like MJ, some of us do.

so if i was u id hav a bit of respect for people.
or didnt ur mummy teach u that when u were a child?

MJ

sinecure

May 29th, 2005, 05:18 PM

Yeah... she's spamming virtually the entire board with badly-written, un-thought-out Michael Jackson crap, and exhibiting a monomaniacal fascination with the weirdo. :rolleyes

...and, to demonstrate my PC-ness:.. Not that there's anything WRONG with that... http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/nut.gif

MJ_junkie86

May 29th, 2005, 05:33 PM

yawn.

do u really hav nothin better to talk about so u gotta argue wit a teenager?
i find that quite sad.

MJ

sinecure

May 29th, 2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
yawn.

do u really hav nothin better to talk about so u gotta argue wit a teenager?
i find that quite sad.

MJ

Well... when the teenager is acting badly, writing badly and thinking badly..

Then...yeah... I guess I'll spend some of my precious time and "argue" [actually that should be "attempt to correct"] a misguided 19-year-old.

You should thank those of us who do so...

MJ_junkie86

May 29th, 2005, 08:00 PM

thank u(you) for wat(what)? being unable to except people think differently to u(you)?
well in that case, thanks.

and who says am(Im) acting badly? it takes two to do this remember, sweetheart.
maybe its not jus me u(you) should've been thinkin about when u(you) wrote that.

"thinking badly", oh i like that one. made me laugh a little in fact.

well i think UR (you're) "thinkin badly" coz(because) i dont agree with what u(you) say. (yep, that doesnt make sense does it guys. me thinkin hes "thinkin badly" jus(just) because i dont agree with him. but oh well; i guess if sincure says it it must be true)

**NB, ive made my post idiot proof by typing the normal way of spelling words beside the shortened down way. now even sincure can understand it***

MJ

w1che

May 29th, 2005, 08:33 PM

Quote MJ... some people need a chill pill. if u want me to be nice
>>>>>>>>>>

Lets get one thing straight.. I don't care if you're nice or not. It's the one mod that seems to want to protect you. I know what you are so we can just leave it at that. You could act your age a little better if you would stop whining like a baby just because some people disagree with you..

MJ_junkie86

May 29th, 2005, 08:37 PM

i hope that is directed at sincure too.
"You could act your age a little better if you would stop whining like a baby just because some people disagree with you.."

so sincure, u need to act ur age too, stop whining coz i dont agree wit u.

fair point dont u think w1che?

MJ

w1che

May 29th, 2005, 08:44 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v678/w1che/Cryingliberal.gif

Quote MJ... do u really hav nothin better to talk about so u gotta argue wit a teenager?
i find that quite sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>..

Sin don't you know she is a crying teenager that wants to get her way and you argue with her.. One thing about it, if nothing else she is good for a laugh once in a while...

:lol

MJ_junkie86

May 29th, 2005, 08:49 PM

like i said. it takes TWO people to argue.

this is gettin boring.

MJ

sinecure

May 30th, 2005, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
thank u(you) for wat(what)? being unable to except people think differently to u(you)?
well in that case, thanks.

See?? You lost me at " "... unable to EXCEPT people ["who"] think differently to ["than"] u..."

This is English?? Mildly amusing however.... I think that I actually DO "except" a lot of folks who think differently when their thinking is demonstrably WRONG.

[hint: look up 'except" and then look up "accept". Memorize the difference. It'll make you seem a lot smarter if you use them correctly.]

and who says am(Im) acting badly? it takes two to do this remember, sweetheart.
maybe its not jus me u(you) should've been thinkin about when u(you) wrote that.

Naaah... it's your childishly-written drivel that I'm taking EXCEPTION [a correct usage there] to...

"thinking badly", oh i like that one. made me laugh a little in fact.

well i think UR (you're) "thinkin badly" coz(because) i dont agree with what u(you) say. (yep, that doesnt make sense does it guys. me thinkin hes "thinkin badly" jus(just) because i dont agree with him. but oh well; i guess if sincure says it it must be true)

No... you're obviously lacking any analytical capacity. You "believe in" Jackson's "innocence" and yet you call everybody out with reference to some set of murky "FACTS" that you haven't been able to state. THAT'S "thinking badly" kiddo. If you simply BELIEVE it, that's the end of the story.... you are welcome to your beliefs... where you trip is when you cite "FACTS" and can't provide them.

**NB, ive made my post idiot proof by typing the normal way of spelling words beside the shortened down way. now even sincure can understand it***
MJ

Yeah??? Well try again. I actually don't think you have a prayer of writing [i]anything that is "idiot proof" Shakespeare said it many years ago, and I think it applies here:
"A tale,
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Idnew

May 30th, 2005, 09:55 AM

OK all of you knock it off. She likes MJ so that's her choice. But based on what I hear on the news since I or none of you know the "FACTS" if I was on the jury just from what I've heard on TV then I would have to say not guilty but is he or isn't he I don't know. I think he is fond of children, but does that make him a child molester, I don't know but he does put himself in questionable positions which might be innocent but look otherwise.

Because he's done all that weird stuff to his negro body still doesn't make him a molester. He's just plain weird is all.

The way MJ writes is from usually hanging around chat rooms. I have to catch myself when posting here from not writing like that. But then I don't write that bad in a chat room. Mostly this.... r u (are you)going to bed now? ty(thank you)gn(good night)hagd(have a good day)gt(good try)gg(good game)coz(cause)etc etc

The way my sister writes is how she talks and I think she forgot how to spell correctly.

w1che

May 30th, 2005, 10:28 AM

So we have changed from a debate forum to a be nice to anyone that likes the pervert Jackson forum..

Why did MJ start this thread & then start saying that anyone that didn't agree with her didn't know the FACTS of the case? She doesn't know any more about the FACTS of the case than anyone else does..

If this were about any every day Joe & not pervert Jackson they would be spending a long time in jail starting a year ago..

I guess the pervert gave the other kid over 20 million bucks not to talk just because he liked him huh?

Idnew

May 30th, 2005, 11:02 AM

So we have changed from a debate forum to a be nice to anyone that likes the pervert Jackson forum.. No we have not. You can debate with her or anyone all you like about M. Jackson but the snipping about how she writes needs to stop.

My personal opinion why he paid the other one off is to keep the publicity down. This one I think figured it not to go to court and get paid off also. Guess M. Jackson decided to not pay out of court just to keep from going to court this time. After all if he pays off another one then don't you figure someone else will come along and say the same thing. Again I'm not sitting in the court room hearing all the evidence so we are just guessing from the news if he is or isn't guilty. I'm not defending him I'm just saying I don't know if he is or not, because I really have no use for him or his music.

MJ_junkie86

May 30th, 2005, 01:34 PM

its about money, then and now.
even if MJs found innocent they can still get money.

most of u must hav kids. if u really believed ur kid had been molested, would u rather the person who done it go to jail? or u get some money, but leave this guy out on the street.

there is no question about wat i would do, i wouldnt ACCEPT (sincure) any amount of money over the guy going to jail.

and any parent would choose the guy going to jail.
so why didnt they in 93?

the dad of the boy (jordy) was even on tape sayin he was gonna ruin MJ no matter wat it took (this was BEFORE MJ had been accused with anythin) jus because he was jealous that jordy was spendin more time wit jackson than him.

i hav a artical about the 93 case, but its VERY long.
and i cant attach it. how can i post it?

MJ

DustyBottoms

May 30th, 2005, 02:03 PM

MJ_junkie86 - I actually feel sorry for you. Your sole ambition in life seems to be worshiping Michael Jackson.

Guess what... Michael Jackson does not care one bit about you. He only likes little boys. :wink

Living your life vicariously through someone else's is not healthy. :confused

w1che

May 30th, 2005, 02:15 PM

Idnew, don't you think Jackson could have stopped it by not sleeping with other people's little boys? I wonder why he doesn't have little girls stay over?

If he hadn't molested that other boy don't you think they would have taken a lot less than 20 to 25 million if they didn't have anything to tell except lies? Look at the whole picture & stop with the snap shots..

MJ_junkie86

May 30th, 2005, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
MJ_junkie86 - I actually feel sorry for you. Your sole ambition in life seems to be worshiping Michael Jackson.

Guess what... Michael Jackson does not care one bit about you. He only likes little boys. :wink

Living your life vicariously through someone else's is not healthy. :confused

nah, its jus no one wants to talk about anythin else.

like ive already said somewhere, id be more than happy to stop talkin about him.
jus other people cant seem to let it drop.
and they attach me and the way i choose to type my posts.

i am gettin very bored of this infact. i would love to talk about somethin other than jackson.

MJ

sinecure

May 30th, 2005, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
nah, its jus no one wants to talk about anythin else.

like ive already said somewhere, id be more than happy to stop talkin about him.
jus other people cant seem to let it drop.
and they attach me and the way i choose to type my posts.

i am gettin very bored of this infact. i would love to talk about somethin other than jackson.

MJ

"Other people can't seem to let it drop"???

Oh, that's rich...! Look back...YOU'RE the one who spammed the board with MJ-related stuff.

YOU'RE the mental sub-teen who crashed the adult's party with your idol-worshipping of the self-proclaimed "King of Pop".

Sorry if this seems like another "ATTACH" [:rolleyes ]....

Your "cutsie" netspeak/chatroom patois isn't impenetrable to me, and that's not my major criticism... Read my criticisms again. It's your gross misuse of even elemental English conventions. A product of over-crowded Public Schools and a broken home, no doubt.

To paraphrase Bill Cosby: "You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap going around in your head and coming out of your keyboard..."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38565

~~~~~~~~
sin
"Effing the ineffable since 1993."

MJ_junkie86

May 30th, 2005, 03:16 PM

see what i mean
jus hav to hav the last word, dont ya.

well go on then....the floor is open.

MJ

sinecure

May 30th, 2005, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
see what i mean
jus hav to hav the last word, dont ya.

well go on then....the floor is open.

MJ

Let's see....:think

...now, was that YOUR latest attempt at having "the last word."??

Looks like it...

:rolleyes :bored

:lol :lol

Idnew

May 30th, 2005, 11:48 PM

Idnew, don't you think Jackson could have stopped it by not sleeping with other people's little boys? I wonder why he doesn't have little girls stay over? I wonder about a lot of things about him. LOL like why did he get married and claim those two white children are his??? I said he left the door open for what he's going through now. Now that was real stupid after the first incident.

Look at the whole picture & stop with the snap shots Well when I started this thread I said with the evidence we hear if you were the jury how would you vote. Right now by this poll it looks like a hung jury.

MJ_junkie86

June 8th, 2005, 08:23 PM

http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=599&Itemid=32

MJ

sinecure

June 9th, 2005, 03:26 AM

Oh JOY!! A closing arguement by a defense attorney. Of course we can all take anything HE says to the bank, 'cause it's good as gold... right? :lame

...and just how is this supposed to affect ME?

Perhaps you ought to start living a life of your own, little Miss Star-Struck. :rolleyes :rolleyes Living on Earth might be both expensive and difficult at times, but it does include a free trip around the sun every year. Do you have anything like that on YOUR planet? :question

:wave :lol :lol

Idnew

June 9th, 2005, 08:07 AM

Ok MJ when you single out a member just be prepared for that person to respond back to you and don't get your panties in a wad when they do.

The verdict is expected today from what I heard on the news this morning.

MJ_junkie86

June 9th, 2005, 05:03 PM

well good ole sin was the one who kept on, i jus thought he might like to read it.
obviously if he still thinks MJ is stone cold guilty he hasnt read it.
but anyway...

idnew, the verdict could be any day. they got a 98 page doc to read throught 1st, so who knows how long that could take.

england is about 8 hours behind them so now its about 2pm over there.
so in another few hours it will all be over for another day.

MJ

MJ_junkie86

June 9th, 2005, 05:09 PM

oh...lol.
i can assure u that my panties are nice and untwisted :)

lol ole sin is jus up on his extremely high horse, watever he throws down from up there jus slides over my head like water off a ducks back.

MJ

Idnew

June 13th, 2005, 05:27 PM

Conspiricy to commit child abduction 1 count----Not guilty

Lewd act upon a child under 14 4 counts---Not guilty

Attempted lewd act on a child under 14 1 count--Not guilty

Administering alcohol to enable child molestation 4 counts----Not guilty

RosieWolf

June 13th, 2005, 05:30 PM

NOT GUILTY !!! on ALL COUNTS!

I TOLD U SO!!!

Idnew

June 13th, 2005, 05:34 PM

This was an all white jury.

I never thought he was guilty of anything but being weird and it was just a bad attempt to get money out of him again but this time he chose to fight it in court.

OK MJ I hear you hollering in here.:wink

RK.

June 13th, 2005, 06:00 PM

Congrats MJ_junkie. :dance

I didn't see how they could find him guilty either. Especially after the McCully Culkin testimony. That pretty much blew the prosecutions witnesses out of the water for me. That and the psycho mothers testimony.

I think MJ is guilty of bad judgment and needs to stop thinking he can be 14 yrs old by hanging out with young kids. Basically he needs to grow up. Maybe this will be the wake up call he needed.

MJ_junkie86

June 15th, 2005, 06:01 PM

yes, guilty of being a bit niave when it comes to his "friends"
but INNOCENT ON EVERY CHARGE.
now its been provin in court.

all these IDIOTS who thought he was guilty need to kiss my sweet !!! :kiss :nah

MJ

DustyBottoms

June 15th, 2005, 06:21 PM

Still guilty.... Just not legally proved. This jury would have dismissed the charges even if shown a video of the act taking place.

Ask youself what you would think if he slept with little girls. :confused

MJ_junkie86

June 15th, 2005, 06:44 PM

are u being serious? or jus being stupid?

tell me u are being stupid.
this is a criminal trial, this isnt some bloody magazine photo shoot. this is fuc%in serious.

he was judged by a jury of his pers (sp) not by FANS.
they looked at the evidence (or LACK of it) and came to their desicion.

the jurys are doing a job, they not tryin to prove who loves him more. coz that wasnt the case, and if it was, then they WOUND NOT be a jurer in a criminal trial.

jesus, u really are thick. why dont u get ur head outta ur !!! and look at the facts? he was found innocent of every charge.

why are u still sayin hes guilty? IF he was guilty he would hav been found. but he wasnt, even on the lesser charges.

THAT IS BECOUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE

MJ

DustyBottoms

June 15th, 2005, 07:47 PM

Even some of the jurors said he was guilty of previous pedophilia but that the judge said they could not base their decision on that.

No comment from you about him sleeping with little girls?

BTW - legally guilty and actually guilty are two different things. Think OJ...:hang

sinecure

June 15th, 2005, 08:37 PM

I'll give you a pass on a lot of this stuff, mainly because you are a non-American, but also because you are a star-struck celebrity-idolizing idiot.... and a ill-mannered one at that. I'm afraid that I'd be quite willing to KICK your azz, but you're gonna have to hold your breath until I'm willing to KISS it.

There is no jury verdict in American jurisprudence of "Innocent". The jury's finding in the MJ trial was "Not Guilty"... which does NOT necessarily mean that "He didn't do it.", but that the prosecution didn't prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" factor is a real puzzle to many jurors. Dispite the judge's instructions to the contrary [which can be quite confusing to non-legal types] many think that it is similar to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" ... a lead-pipe cinch. I believe that this jury was mal-selected and mishandled. They should've been sequestered from day one of the trial.

One of the female jurors said on a local TV interview that she thought that MJ was "...just an average guy... just like the rest of us.":rolleyes Several of the jurors said that they wanted the prosecution to provide more physical evidence.... One woman mentioned "...like on CSI."[Crime Scene Investigation... a popular fictional TV program.] This shows what at least a couple of the jurors were thinking [or NOT thinkinghttp://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/nono2.gif].

They had no idea of the reality of putting a case of this type together. We'll see if there is a follow-up of a civil suit.... a-la O.J.

Oh well.... MJ will stay-true-to-form for his type, and he'll undoubtedly continue to have his little friends sleep-over...:rolleyes

"It's not sexthual, it's beautiful. I put some music on and we have cookies and milk." MJ....http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/nono2.gif

"Not guilty"? I think Triumph the Comedy Insult Dog said it best:

"Who are we to pass judgement on this man?

Who amongst us can honestly say that they have never slept with a 12 year old boy after sharing some alcohol and porography in the company of a chimpanzee."http://www.kurts-smilies.de/grinser.gif

RK.

June 15th, 2005, 09:48 PM

Don't let them get to you MJ :wink They are just ticked off that their predictions didn't come true. They just don't want to admit that there was no case other than MJ's word against a psycho mama and a 13 yr old rehearsed kid who was shown to have lied several times and changed his story. The truth is Sin and DB et. al. just don't like Michael Jackson and his image and that makes it alright for them to think he is guilty regardless of the testimony and lack of evidence. The prosecution witnesses were found to be lying. Thats the tall and short of it.

RosieWolf

June 15th, 2005, 10:07 PM

what continues to amaze (and pi$$ me off) about this country is.. it is no longer...... innocent until proven guiltiy.. it's become... [guilty] until proven innocent.. and seems no matter how many trials there are.. or evidence to the contrary.. no one is ever proved innocent anymore.. just not guilty.. which means they did it, the prosecutor jes cant prove it or failed to do his job..

I continue to be amazed at the people who are convicted on such slimey and flimsy 'evidence', and they are found guilty. Seems to me, most of the guilty verdicts are based on human emotions instead of the facts.

i praise the jurors on the michael jackson case. FINALLY some people who viewed the FACTS.. not the emotions that were so tainted in the entire procedure.

as for the oj trial.. i hope those jurors still have trouble sleeping at nite. if they had used plain ol'common sense, they'd have known that the glove DID fit, because if he hadn't been wearing a rubber glove in court, it would have fit him perfectly. If the prosecution had waited just a little longer, they'd have found the murder weapons and evidence of nicole and ron's blood in his golf bag, etc. they rushed to trial and dropped the ball. so yes, in this case, the prosecution failed to do their job. the bad guy got away with murder and he's NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT.. for all time. that's the law..

MJ_junkie86

June 15th, 2005, 10:19 PM

thank u RK and rosie.
2 people on here who aint prejudiced against people different from themselves

MJ

w1che

June 15th, 2005, 11:09 PM

What a crock.. Jackson was guilty yesterday, he was guilty today & he will be guilty tomorrow.. I saw one idiot that was on the jury on TV and he said I wouldn't let my kid around Jackson but I didn't like the way the kids mother acted on the stand.

These people didn't get a dime out of this so had no reason to lie in this case. Money, fame & a Calif. jury will set you free in America..

sinecure

June 15th, 2005, 11:25 PM

Rosie, it appears that you are as hopelessly confused as the rest of 'em.

The only finding the jury was to make in both the O.J. and M.J. trials was "guilty" or "not guillty". Simply two degrees of "guilt". Binary, off or on. All or none. There was no "innocent" finding to be made. "Not guilty" does not equate to "innocent," and more often than not means simply that the prosecution didn't prove its case to each and every one of the 12 jurors... 12 out of 12 are needed for conviction in a criminal case.

I'm sorry if you are also confused with, and apparently unable to make a personal judgement here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a buzzphrase that applies only in how a defendant is to be looked at as regards to court proceedings [and even then, note that many defendants are handcuffed and closely guarded in court:question]. It has absolutely nothing to do with how anybody else is to consider the defendant.

You must be another star-struck MJ fan... huh?

sinecure

June 15th, 2005, 11:35 PM

RK-- Unfortunately the prosecution doesn't get to select their victims. If the boy victim had a weirdo for a mother, well.... [Personally, I think she was pimping-off her kid, just like the earlier case where MJ bought them off for a few million.]

Are we now saying that kids with strange folks can't be victims? That once you've lied [what kid hasn't?] that you can never be considered to be truthful again?

You'll see... pedophiles can't stop doing what they do best. MJ will be doing it again within a few months. Perhaps he'll move to someplace that is a lot more tolerant towards that kind of behavior , Thailand, for instance, or France...:wink and get away with it for the rest of his life. If he stays here, he's likely to get nailed again.

RK.

June 16th, 2005, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by sinecure
RK-- Unfortunately the prosecution doesn't get to select their victims. If the boy victim had a weirdo for a mother, well.... [Personally, I think she was pimping-off her kid, just like the earlier case where MJ bought them off for a few million.]

Are we now saying that kids with strange folks can't be victims? That once you've lied [what kid hasn't?] that you can never be considered to be truthful again?

You'll see... pedophiles can't stop doing what they do best. MJ will be doing it again within a few months. Perhaps he'll move to someplace that is a lot more tolerant toward that kind of behavior , Thailand, for instance, or France...:wink and get away with it for the rest of his life. If he stays here, he's likely to get nailed again.

She wasn't pimping her kid, she was a con artist. This wasn't her first BS law suit and the lawyer she hired was the same one that got money out of Jackson last time by threatening to make pics of his dick available to the tabloids. The witnesses for the prosecution like the security guard that said he saw MJ molesting McCauley Culkin were also shown to be liars. The others that the prosecution said MJ had molested all got up on the stand and said it never happened. If MJ is really a serial pedophile as you claim how come there weren't lots of kids coming forward like happens when a priest is outed? MJ has had thousands of kids out to Neverland Ranch. The prosecution claimed he had slept with many young boys. Well why aren't they coming forward with charges??? The reason is because Jackson isn't a pedophile. He thinks he can be Peter Pan and never have to grow up and can be 14 forever (delusional and naive I will grant you), but that doesn't mean he is molesting the kids he is hanging out with.

Again if he were a serial pedophile there would be 10 or 20 or more victims lined up suing him like in the church scandals. MJ has had Neverland Ranch going for about 20 years now. The prosecution implied that he was "sleeping" with lots of young boys. Well where are they??? It just doesn't add up. Its much more likely that the jury got it right and that this was an attempt at extortion by the mother and her lawyer who had done it once before. And they used this poor kid with cancer to do so. You take a young kid like that and a manipulative mother and a lawyer out to line his pockets, and you can make him believe something happened that really didn't. Its happened before. Remember that preschool scandal several years ago that resulted in convictions because all these kids said they had been molested? It turned out that they lied to please their parents and the police investigators. They were led to say things had happened that hadn't. Also remember part of the charges were that he had held the kid and is mother captive. An absolute BS claim as it was shown that she was at a spa getting her hair and nails done during the time she was supposedly being held. The kid himself changed his story a couple of times on the stand. Probably couldn't remember what he had been told to say that had happened.

dave404

June 16th, 2005, 03:33 AM

Sin, The prosecution *does* get to decide what cases to bring. And in California the rate of acquittal for felonies is extremely low, something like 0.3%. That excludes dismissals and plea bargains.

I don't know whether MJ is a paedophile. He's certainly quite out of touch with reality, but that makes him very difficult to judge by normal standards. What I do know is that I would not have convicted him on the evidence presented, for all the reasons that RK mentions. The law says clearly "beyond reasonable doubt", and this was a long way from that.

As for OJ, once it became apparent that the police had planted evidence, the whole thing was dead. Personally, I think he was lying to protect someone else - but we'll probably never know.

w1che

June 16th, 2005, 05:44 AM

Quote RK.. This wasn't her first BS law suit and the lawyer she hired was the same one that got money out of Jackson last time by threatening to make pics of his dick available to the tabloids.
>>>>>>>>>>
This had nothing to do with a law suit. It was a criminal case, but it's over until the next idiot lets their little boy hang out with Jackson. He has his own kids now so maybe he will leave other kids alone. We shall see..

Idnew

June 16th, 2005, 07:58 AM

until the next idiot lets their little boy hang out with Jackson That's right and just like this "mom" she already knew from before the accusations so therefore I think she assumed MJ would just pay her off but when he didn't she prolly got mad and decided to concoct this lie. Now she's going to file a civil suit which I don't understand because that's like re-trying someone all over again, like in the OJ case. I can't see how that can be done, but then I haven't researced it either.

RosieWolf

June 16th, 2005, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by sinecure
Rosie, it appears that you are as hopelessly confused as the rest of 'em.*snip*

I'm sorry if you are also confused with, and apparently unable to make a personal judgement here. *snip*
You must be another star-struck MJ fan... huh?

No, i'm not confused. I understand the judicial system very well. And the law was originally written, innocent until PROVEN guilty.. but has become warped over the years by media and malicious prosecutors into guilty until PROVEN innocent.. that was my point. with the way trials are conducted 'today' , jurors are always convicting innocent people 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on totally fabricated and circumstantial 'evidence' which doesn't hold up under close scrutiny or detailed investigation.. like should be done before a case ever goes to trial.

so again, no, i'm not confused and i can make personal judgements just fine on all the evidence. None of the 'evidence' against jackson can hold up under close scrutiny.. look at just THIS trial.. and THIS evidence .. it's all fabricated.. or a twisted distortion of the truth.

one point in fact.. the supposed molestation of this particular boy, happened AFTER the interview by that british media guy.. tapes showing the entire interview.. including the tapes that jackson himself made AT THE SAME TIME.. show a totally different story..

this railroad reminds me of the waco mess. I was there and watching all the news at the time it happened, but by the time the media got the taped reports , much of the information was twisted to suit themselves..and totally different from what was actually shown.. i know because i had taped most all of the reports every day, i still have the tapes in my storage locker in texas, and the 'excerpts' from those reports is so twisted as to be ludicrous.. the time line was all jumbled up and many things were changed to make the davidians look like saints.. and they clearly were NOT.

as for being a MJ fan, yes, i am. I have always liked his 'older' music, have stated at length before in this thread that i don't really like some of his 'newer' stuff, but how i feel for him personally, or his music, doesn't affect how i feel about his guilt or innocence... look at the evidence.. it was so trumped up it was to the point of being ridiculous.

Yes.. he is strange.. he had a $hitty childhood, as did i, and he went in a different direction that most folks would do.. many kill themselves because of how they were raised, some murder , some rape, some jes sit around in a fog.. some choose to ignore their past (as i do), and others pretend it didn't exist and live it now.. (as michael does)..

he's made millions.. get over it.. he earned it.. he also gives away millions.. to kids all over the world who wouldn't have a chance without it.. why is it when he does good with his money.. unlike so-called philathropists like john kerry and his clan.. is he labeled a pedophile?.. if he gave his money to animal charities, would he then be a beastiality pervert? probably so in the eyes of people who are jealous of his accomplishments.

there will always be people jealous of famous/rich people. look at how elvis had to live just to have some time to himself.. howard hughes.. i could go on, but some of you will never get the picture.. instead u choose to sit around and grous about people who have accomplished more in their life and gave something back .. tithing their 10% or more back to God for their blessings bestowed on them seems to be beyond comprehension for most of the people on this miserable planet.. a misery that the people themselves have created.

{off soapbox}

RK.

June 16th, 2005, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by w1che
Quote RK.. This wasn't her first BS law suit and the lawyer she hired was the same one that got money out of Jackson last time by threatening to make pics of his dick available to the tabloids.
>>>>>>>>>>
This had nothing to do with a law suit. It was a criminal case, but it's over until the next idiot lets their little boy hang out with Jackson. He has his own kids now so maybe he will leave other kids alone. We shall see..
It had every thing to do with a law suit. They charged him with a criminal act so they could sue him in civil court. If he had been found guilty the civil suit is a slam dunk. Its all about the money.

sinecure

June 16th, 2005, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by dave404
Sin, The prosecution *does* get to decide what cases to bring. And in California the rate of acquittal for felonies is extremely low, something like 0.3%. That excludes dismissals and plea bargains.

I don't know whether MJ is a paedophile. He's certainly quite out of touch with reality, but that makes him very difficult to judge by normal standards. What I do know is that I would not have convicted him on the evidence presented, for all the reasons that RK mentions. The law says clearly "beyond reasonable doubt", and this was a long way from that.

As for OJ, once it became apparent that the police had planted evidence, the whole thing was dead. Personally, I think he was lying to protect someone else - but we'll probably never know.

Yeah... well... for over 30 years, I had a very small part in that low rate of acquittal in Calif. [although I wonder at your figure there... .3%? that's very low.] While the DA does have a lot of discretion as to what cases to file and which to pass on, every felony brought to court in Calif via an "information" and not a Grand Jury indictment must also go through a "Preliminary Hearing" in Municipal Court. In this proceeding, the Judge determines if a crime has been committed and whether there is sufficient reason to link the defendant to it. ... so it isn't solely the Prosecution who decides which cases will be tried.... there are many felony cases that are stopped at the Preliminary Hearing.

While there are those who completely discount "circumstiantial evidence" as irrelevant, there are many crimes in which circumstiantial evidence is the only true "evidence" available. I've participated in successful homicide prosecutions in which the body of the deceased was never found. Crimes that are carefully planned and done in provate, like child molestation, are almost never flush with physical evidence.... for several reasons. Possibly the most significant reason is that these crimes [unless stumbled-upon while in progress by a third party] have so little physical evidence is that the victim is often quite reluctant to report his/her victimization. In the time period from offense to the victim's reporting of it, much physical evidence will be lost or otherwise compromised.

Oh, and Dave, could you please explain what you mean by your charge that the police "planted evidence" in the OJ case?

RK's statement that if MJ really was a pedophile, there should be veritable lines of victims outside the DA's Office willing to report MJ's pedophilia is patently wrong, and neglects to consider some very basic truths. Star-struck people are often quite unwilling to accept that their idol can have feet of clay.

RK's thinking regarding the lawyer selection of the victim's mother easily backfires when it is asked, "Well... what lawyer did MJ hire? What's HIS track record?" One is always wise to hire the very best and experienced lawyer you can find.

Rosie fails to grasp the difference between actual guilt and legal guilt.... or perhaps [contrary to her prostations that she isn't confused] she'd simply unclear regarding the meaning of the two terms. She also apparently believes that wealthy, famous people can't possibly commit such mundane crimes as diddling little boys.

Idnew hits close to the bullseye with her commentary. I believe the victim's mother is a moonbat of the first water, and knowingly placed her son in harm's way in order to score big bucks. She also liked the expensive gifts. Does that mean it was then OK for MJ to victimize the kid? Hardly.

As I wrote before, pedophiles will continue to offend. MJ might get away with it for many more years... or he might become a terminal-ballistics test dummy for hollowpoint bullets if, some day, he happens to mess with the wrong guy's kid.

RK.

June 16th, 2005, 05:20 PM

RK's statement that if MJ really was a pedophile, there should be veritable lines of victims outside the DA's Office willing to report MJ's pedophilia is patently wrong, and neglects to consider some very basic truths. Star-struck people are often quite unwilling to accept that their idol can have feet of clay.

We will just have to disagree on that as I think a Priest or Bishop or Cardinal rises to the level of idol for most Catholics, but they still lined up to accuse them when the lid came off. Also the DA implied that MJ was a serial pedophile, however, those he chose to put on the stand to back up that charge denied it. If you truly have the background in law you claim then you must know that the DA had no case. His witnesses to the charges were shown to be liars. All of them including the kid. If all the people making charges are shown to be lying don't you think its possible that maybe MJ isn't guilty of the charges??????????? The truth is you just want him to be guilty because of your own feelings toward him.

RK's thinking regarding the lawyer selection of the victim's mother easily backfires when it is asked, "Well... what lawyer did MJ hire? What's HIS track record?" One is always wise to hire the very best and experienced lawyer you can find.
Thats a pretty weak argument. Finding a lawyer to bring charges is way different than getting one to defend you. She went out and got an attny that had already bilked MJ out of millions. It had nothing to do with his qualifications as a lawyer. Of all the lawyers in LA thats the guy she got. What do you think her interest was? Getting MJ for molesting her kid or going after MJ's money? Come on Sin you know that isn't hard to figure out. Don't be surprised if next year she finds a finger in her bowl of chili. :tongue

MJ_junkie86

June 16th, 2005, 05:24 PM

oh for gods sake sin. cant u get get over it?
what is wrong wit u? the man has been proved innocent by a jury of his peers.

explain this to me.
why did the mum go to the lawers before going to the police?
humm, smells a bit fishy to me.

and the DA has been after mike for yrs. and when asked if his office will now stop houndin mike, he said NO COMMENT, wit a stupid little smirk on his face. surely the "correct" answer would hav been, we've never hounded him.
oh but wait.... that would be lying.

MJ

DustyBottoms

June 16th, 2005, 06:02 PM

Any 40+ year old man that has homosexual books with naked pictures of sexual porn in the same bedroom in which he shares his bed with underage boys causes me "reasonable doubt" as to his innocence.

And one more time... He was not proved innocent. :rolleyes

You have to notice the people he chooses to associate with. A bunch of slime balls for sure. This is a good indicator of his own character.

Peter Pan? Give me a break.

MJ_junkie86

June 16th, 2005, 06:41 PM

wat? homosexual books. he had maybe one or two. and everythin else was hetrosexual. personally i dont agree wit it, but hes an adult man, am sure u hav looked at porn in ur life time, same as most people on here. and am sure u'd jump at lookin at 2 women together. why should be be different from him? if he wants to look at guys then so be it. so when u watch porn, do u cover up the part of the screen the man is in? humm....
so are u a perv too? nah i didnt think so.

and answer the bit about the lawers and the police.
doesnt make sense does it?

MJ

sinecure

June 17th, 2005, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by RK.
We will just have to disagree on that as I think a Priest or Bishop or Cardinal rises to the level of idol for most Catholics, but they still lined up to accuse them when the lid came off. Also the DA implied that MJ was a serial pedophile, however, those he chose to put on the stand to back up that charge denied it. If you truly have the background in law you claim then you must know that the DA had no case. His witnesses to the charges were shown to be liars. All of them including the kid. If all the people making charges are shown to be lying don't you think its possible that maybe MJ isn't guilty of the charges??????????? The truth is you just want him to be guilty because of your own feelings toward him.
Try to understand and internalize this: The DA isn't required [nor is it even ethical for him] to only bring cases to court that he feels he can win. I don't know where you went to school, but there seems to be some gaps in your understanding of the American legal system... or at the very least, the California system. I'll do what I can to help you, but you gotta at least TRY to get it, OK? :wink

I don't "want him to be guilty"... I think he IS GUILTY.

Thats a pretty weak argument. Well.... originally, YOU brought it up, didn't you?:rolleyes[/quote][/b]

Finding a lawyer to bring charges is way different than getting one to defend you. She went out and got an attny that had already bilked MJ out of millions. It had nothing to do with his qualifications as a lawyer. Of all the lawyers in LA thats the guy she got. What do you think her interest was? Getting MJ for molesting her kid or going after MJ's money? Come on Sin you know that isn't hard to figure out. Don't be surprised if next year she finds a finger in her bowl of chili. :tongue

Who would be the better lawyer??? One who had to start on Page One with MJ.... or one who had a track record with him? I suppose if you are ever sued over a real estate deal, you"re gonna go out and retain an attorney who's a specialist in medical malpractice... right?

Something else for you to think over...It doesn't matter WHAT the motives of the mother were... this case was to determine whether-or-not MJ diddled the little boy. MJ's attorney actually shifted the entire focus of the trial [and the jury's complete attention] to put the VICTIM'S MOTHER on trial. Much like Johnnie Chochran put the LAPD on trial, even though O.J. was the named defendant.

Get real... sadly, you're still blinded by MJ's sequins and the brilliance of What He USED To Be.

dave404

June 17th, 2005, 04:56 AM

Sin,

Yes, it does matter what the motives of the mother were, if you put her and her son in the witness stand. Duh.

DAs do *not* have to bring to trial a case that they do not think will fly. It would be an unethical waste of public money.

I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of the planted evidence in the OJ case. Too long ago. Something to do with bloody fingerprints in places where they could never have got, IIRC. And there was other stuff too.

sinecure

June 17th, 2005, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by dave404
Sin,

Yes, it does matter what the motives of the mother were, if you put her and her son in the witness stand. Duh.

DUH?? I'll say "Duh"!!

Read this slowly-- The most serious crime charged to MJ was a lewed act with a child. Please explain to me in American English [or use your own brand, if you must] just how the motives of the mother are relevant to the prosecution or the defense of that crime. Was he given a "pass" by a confused and distracted jury because the victim had a nutty mother?... looks that way to me. All this crap you and others here are spewing about "Look at the EVIDENCE..." well, I might just exhort YOU to do exactly that... look at the evidence that the kid was molested. You'd have to ignore and completely throw out the kid's testimony... at the trial and on the video... because his mother is a nutcake?

DAs do *not* have to bring to trial a case that they do not think will fly. It would be an unethical waste of public money.

Yes, they can issue a "DA reject" ...IF THEY CAN'T SEE A CONNECTION FROM THE CRIME TO THE DEFENDANT, OR IF THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. Read what I wrote again-- "The DA isn't required [nor is it even ethical for him] to only bring cases to court that he feels he can win."

I'm sorry, I can't remember the details of the planted evidence in the OJ case. Too long ago. Something to do with bloody fingerprints in places where they could never have got, IIRC. And there was other stuff too.

Yeah, well then... you were taken-in along with the jury. There was no "evidence planting" done by LAPD. Johnnie C. tried LAPD rather than defending OJ. It worked on the stupid downtown jurors. The idiot judge let him get by with it... probably hoping that the DA would patch it up. They didn't. "Jury nullification" was [and remains] the phrase-of-the-day.

sinecure

June 17th, 2005, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
oh for gods sake sin. cant u get get over it?
what is wrong wit u? the man has been proved innocent by a jury of his peers.

Didn't I already explain that he WASN'T "proved INNOCENT"?? You might think that was a "jury of his peers"... I don't.

explain this to me.
why did the mum go to the lawers before going to the police?
humm, smells a bit fishy to me.

Ahhhh.... I see grasping "concepts" isn't one of your strong points...

Let's see... why don't we try THIS for an explanation?-- Would you suppose she first went to a lawyer FOR LEGAL ADVICE?? Perhaps to see if she had a case or not... BEFORE damaging her kid's name, reputation and psyche any further?

and the DA has been after mike for yrs. and when asked if his office will now stop houndin mike, he said NO COMMENT, wit a stupid little smirk on his face. surely the "correct" answer would hav been, we've never hounded him.
oh but wait.... that would be lying.

MJ

Well... what's YOUR definition of "hounding"?? The DA's answer was the only appropriate one. Especially considering the exposure [a legal term] any other answer would have caused him.

You just hang on... Mikey will again be diddling little boys soon enough. :whistle

"Not guilty"? I think Triumph the Comedy Insult Dog said it best.

"Who are we to pass judgement on this man?

Who amongst us can honestly say that they have never slept with a 12 year old boy after sharing some alcohol and porography in the company of a chimpanzee."

"It's not sexthual, it's beautiful. I put some music on and we have cookies and milk."-- Michael Jackson.

:rolleyes :rolleyes

Idnew

June 17th, 2005, 07:35 AM

I was at a private club last night sitting there with 5 white men and just me(none of us care for MJ's music, nor are we fans of his) and of course this came up. I was really amazed that all of us agreed that MJ was not guilty but trying to be scammed. I was equally amazed when my black co-worker(who is an MJ fan) told me she thought he should have been found guilty of at least the alchol charge.

As for as having porn mags around he should have put them out of sight, but how many men hasn't looked at porn mags. My son thinks he's hiding them between the matress, but they aren't around for his daughter to see anyway.Let's see... why don't we try THIS for an explanation?-- Would you suppose she first went to a lawyer FOR LEGAL ADVICE?? Perhaps to see if she had a case or not... BEFORE damaging her kid's name, reputation and psyche any further?
No I think she went there first to see if the same lawyer could get money for her and when that didn't happen she got mad and brainwashed her kid(who couldn't tell the same story twice the same way) and went to the DA. Sad she used her kid who probably enjoyed his stay at Neverland very much and now will never be allowed back.

Now Sin don't you find it odd that the DA managed to get an all white jury to hopefully find him guilty but that didn't happen. If they would have been black or at least one black on the jury then the argument would be........that's why he was found not guilty, but that isn't the case. Maybe he is maybe he isn't guilty of child molestation, but the evidence in this case didn't prove it or even leave any doubt IMO.

sinecure

June 17th, 2005, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Idnew
I was at a private club last night sitting there with 5 white men and just me(none of us care for MJ's music, nor are we fans of his) and of course this came up. I was really amazed that all of us agreed that MJ was not guilty but trying to be scammed. I was equally amazed when my black co-worker(who is an MJ fan) told me she thought he should have been found guilty of at least the alchol charge.

Yeppers.... "Not Guilty" on ALL COUNTS?? Jury nullification at its worst.

...No I think she went there first to see if the same lawyer could get money for her and when that didn't happen she got mad and brainwashed her kid(who couldn't tell the same story twice the same way) and went to the DA. Sad she used her kid who probably enjoyed his stay at Neverland very much and now will never be allowed back.

When on the witness stand and faced with a skillful attorney, it is extremely difficult for even a self-confident, done-this-a-hundred-times, adult police officer to "tell the same story twice in the same way." Believe me. The kid had a snowball's chance in he11.

Now Sin don't you find it odd that the DA managed to get an all white jury to hopefully find him guilty but that didn't happen. If they would have been black or at least one black on the jury then the argument would be........that's why he was found not guilty, but that isn't the case. Maybe he is maybe he isn't guilty of child molestation, but the evidence in this case didn't prove it or even leave any doubt IMO.

Well... Santa Barbara isn't noted for a large black [IS MJ 'black"??] population.... and anyway, the defense had just as many juror challenges as the DA, and could've knocked anybody off the jury they wanted [preemptory challenges] at any time during jury selection. I don't know what the racial composition of the jury pool was... do you?

To continue with the black/white issue-- I think the defense didn't want any blacks on the jury... White guilt, and the tendency for many non-ghetto blacks to be pretty harsh on "their own" [and MJ obvious self-directed transformation to "white"] are both strong factors to be considered.

MJ_junkie86

June 17th, 2005, 05:21 PM

sin u are so racist and prejustic its unreal. mike has a serious skin defect and u are makin fun of him by questioning whether he is actually black.
i bet the black man down the street (tho knowin u, u prob wouldnt live within 100 feet of a black man for fear he may rape ur pure virgin daughters) who had the same skin defect wouldnt be questioned whether he was black or not, else u'd be straght in court for being racist, and damn right too.
i doubt u hav seen someone wit vitiligo, they are black, but parts of their skin has been turned white because of the lack of pigment. maybe that is funny to u?
but to any normal person wit feelings and tolerence towards people different to themselves would not be jokin about whether that person is actually black. and it is no difference with mike.

i dont know why we bother tryin to explain to u that the mother, who has done this exact same thing b4 to a store over there, and won the case (she was proven to lie and PROVEN TO MAKE GAVIN LIE TOO) and then somehow "forgot" to mention the thousands of $ on her benifit claim a few days later, she has also tried doin this to other celebraties. so what, somehow mike has done the exact same thing she jus happened to accuse other people of....hum wat a coincidence.

and going to the lawers first...do u really believe wat u jus said?
surely if u really believed ur kid has been sexually abusied u would be straight down to the coppers.
not to the lawers.

MJ

RK.

June 17th, 2005, 06:21 PM

Hey MJ since you are a Jackson fan maybe you know why he uses white makeup to cover the skin instead of black makeup? I have always found that odd.

MJ_junkie86

June 17th, 2005, 06:27 PM

dunno, suppose it was eaiser.

thats somethin u will hav to ask the man himself :)

but he has always stated that hes black and proud of it.

so why question whether hes black or not? i jus think that is so insensitive.

MJ

DustyBottoms

June 17th, 2005, 08:36 PM

He's black underneath...http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/dustybottoms/thewave.gif

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/dustybottoms/mj2.jpg

MJ_junkie86

June 17th, 2005, 09:46 PM

lol not seen that one b4.

MJ

sinecure

June 17th, 2005, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
sin u are so fuc%kin racist and prejustic its unreal. mike has a serious skin defect and u are makin fun of him by questioning whether he is actually black.
i bet the black man down the street (tho knowin u, u prob wouldnt live within 100 feet of a black man for fear he may rape ur pure virgin daughters) who had the same skin defect wouldnt be questioned whether he was black or not, else u'd be straght in court for being racist, and damn right too.
i doubt u hav seen someone wit vitiligo, they are black, but parts of their skin has been turned white because of the lack of pigment. maybe that is funny to u?
but to any normal person wit feelings and tolerence towards people different to themselves would not be jokin about whether that person is actually black. and it is no difference with mike.

Not only are you stupid, you are also ill-mannered... you need to go back to some teen board where you can write all your nifty disguised profanity to people who'll think you are really clever.

You don't know much of anything about me or how I deal with various races, but that doesn't stop or matter to you, huh? You're so enamored with MJ's ...whatever... that you find it impossible to see him for what he really is. It's YOUR problem, not mine.

Vitiligo? Sure... and he's only had "one or two" operations on his nose so he could "hit the high notes" huh? Riiiight... :rolleyes How many cases of vitiligo have YOU seen? Every one of the folks with that condition that I've seen has looked more like a pinto pony... very patchy. MJ looks more like those who took the "lightening shots" around the same time he decided he didn't want to look like Diana Ross anymore and switched to mimic Elizabeth Taylor. Currently, he looks like somebody from Planet of the Apes.

[b]i dont know why we bother tryin to explain to u that the mother, who has done this exact same thing b4 to a store over there, and won the case (she was proven to lie and PROVEN TO MAKE GAVIN LIE TOO) and then somehow "forgot" to mention the thousands of $ on her benifit claim a few days later, she has also tried doin this to other celebraties. so what, somehow mike has done the exact same thing she jus happened to accuse other people of....hum wat a coincidence. Let me try to put itno something you have a chance of understanding-- "i dnt kno y i try 2 411 u wid da str8 skoop" :rolleyes... BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE MOTHER'S BACKGROUND IS... THIS WAS A CRIMINAL TRIAL, DUMMY...SHE wasn't on trial, MJ was. Since it was a criminal trial, she wouldn't normally get a dime from him. THE ONLY THING THAT SHOULD HAVE MATTERED IS WHETHER OR NOT MJ MOLESTED THE BOY. ...and anybody with more than two firing synapses can see that it is not only just "likely" he did, but after seeing the kid's testimony, it's a SLAM-DUNK.

and going to the lawers first...do u really believe wat u jus said?
surely if u really believed ur kid has been sexually abusied u would be straight down to the coppers.
not to the lawers.
MJ

Not with a rich and famous guy who'd beat a couple of child-abuse raps a few years before.... yes, I believe what I write, and I have the experience and background that leads me to believe it... YOU are a star-struck simpleton who is in love/infatuated with somebody who doesn't even know you're alive.

Pitiful on SO many levels.:rolleyes :rolleyes http://www.kurts-smilies.de/nono2.gif

MJ_junkie86

June 18th, 2005, 05:16 PM

oh here we go. am supprised i can hear u from all the way up there sir sim.
of course ur right, ur a male and ur older than me, that automatically makes u right.
how silly of me to dare question what u say.

"i dnt kno y i try 2 411 u wid da str8 skoop"
ok, i know ur old, well my grandad is old too and he can remember simple things. like, when hav u even seen me write like that?
i dunno, maybe thats wat u think is funny? like u think makin fun of people wit skin problems is funny.
well i suppose u were brought up in the times when the "colours" werent allowed to even use the white mans toliets. and of course, a woman with an opinion is as good as commiting a sin. so i suppose that explains ur twisted attitude toward things.

"Since it was a criminal trial, she wouldn't normally get a dime from him"
humm, i glad u wrote "normally".
so hummm, explain why shes sueing him again?
maybe she didnt get enought beauty treatments the last time she was "kidnapped" by hotair balloon, and wants a top up?
that all over wax will need re-doing by now.

"YOU are a star-struck simpleton who is in love/infatuated with somebody who doesn't even know you're alive"
wat did u say to me in ur last post? somethin like "u dont even know me"
humm....and when did i say i was in love wit mike? or that we are best mates?

well there is no gettin through to u, so wats the point.
am off. this time u guys dont need to PM me to ask me to come back. and all u said about certain people on here is true.

bye.
MJ

sinecure

June 18th, 2005, 08:10 PM

So.... going off in a huff, huh? [My grandmother had a 1923 Huff... with the bud vases on the pillar posts.:wink ]

I suppose you never noticed the "ignore" feature of this board, huh? I suppose it could've saved you a lot of discontentment and angst.

Too bad you're not going to stick around... you might learn the BIG DIFFERENCE between a "criminal prosecution" and a 'civil action". [Hint-- in one, the defendant can go to jail... in the other, there is a money judgement and/or establishment of right/title/interest.]

But I understand... you can't be bothered with actually LEARNING anything here. It's OK.:question Staying ignorant and arguing against things you know nothing about, well, that just seems to suit you very well.

Why do I think that you are infatuated with MJ?? Well, I suppose we could start out with your screen name here, "MJ Junkie"... and then move to the content/subject matter of 99% of your posts, and then perhaps end with your MJ quoting sigline.... Need any more "evidence"??

As for the netspeak... I just wanted to show you that it doesn't take much to write like that. Yes, I'm an old guy who's seen a lot [but not everything] and probably done more than my share. I realize that I'm no longer young, hip, fabulous, cool, stylish, or much of anything else that YOU might value... So, if **I** can write like that, it isn't much of anything to be proud of.

I bet that I've seen more Blacks with vitiligo [and talked to more Blacks about the condition] than you... yet you swallow MJ's BS about his "condition" hook/line/sinker... you want to "school me" on it, but can't, so you get all defensive when the anomalyof MJ's "condition" is pointed out to you. No, YOU'RE not infatuated with him... not in the slightest... Pretty immature, huh? ...and you're HOW old?? http://www.kurts-smilies.de/erstaunt.gif

Actually, aside from your atrocious use [and LACK of use] of English conventions, your oh-so-cutting use of disguised profanity:rolleyes, your monomaniacal obsession with MJ, your lack of cognitive/reasoning abilities, your exhibition of your complete lack of a sense of humor... and your unwillingness to listen to, and perhaps learn something from, those who just MIGHT know a bit more about a subject than you... well as I said, aside from THAT... I'm gonna miss you.

...or not.:sleep :tongue :bored :whistle

w1che

June 18th, 2005, 08:32 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v678/w1che/AhJeez.jpg

I guess I better PM MJ and ask her not to leave.. You try to be nice to these young ones, bring them along slow, try & teach them about the world and this is the thanks you get..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v678/w1che/merlin.gif

MJ_junkie86

June 18th, 2005, 09:29 PM

lol one thing for sure sin, ur good for a laugh.

i wanna go, jus u post so much bollocks about me and u think its right. i dont care if u dont like MJ or wat u think of him, wat am tryin to show u is that jus coz someone is weird it doesnt make them a pedo.
jus coz u dont like someone, it doesnt mean hes a pedo. and the ONLY real evidence could come from gavin, who has lied about the exact same thing in the past (after being told to by his crazy money grabbin mother) and changed his story countless times.

and from his little brother star, who has also changed his story to make it worse as the case went on.....MJs hand was on his leg/outside of his PJ bottoms/inside the PJ bottoms.
u know, make ur mind up kid.

i apologise, does my screen name up set u? my deepest heartfelt apologies sir sin.
and the reason 99% of my posts are in here, tryin to defend mike, and more to the point, tryin to defend myself!
ive said b4 that id more than happily talk about somethin other than MJ. but u cant seem to drop it. hell, if u dont agree jus shut up and change the subject. then magically my posts will not be about MJ.

ha! since when did i say "netspeak" was "cool"?
yet another thing u dont know about me so decided to make up. find me a post where i said this was anythin OTHER than convinent and i'l bow down, but dont hold ur breath lol.

u bet u've "seen" more people wit vit, i went to school wit a boy wit it, his name was philip. and its not easy and he used to get bullied. so dont give me that crap about not knowing anythin about it.

"perhaps learn something from, those who just MIGHT know a bit more about a subject than you"
how was that worked out? flip a cion, head i know more, tails she knows more?
you've never shown me u know more than me about the subject. all u've shown is that anyone u disagree wit and anyone who is weird is automatically guilty of something.
the only proof u've given is that the boy said it happened. well hes said that b4 at a different trial, and changed his story no end of times. so hes hardly credable.

lol w1tch, "You try to be nice to these young ones, bring them along slow, try & teach them about the world and this is the thanks you get"
who said we need teachin? am 19 and i know for a fact ive been throught more sh1t than u hav in ur entire life. so dont give any crap about us needin to learn things, coz maybe we already know. and know the bad as well as the good.

so sir sin, if u could swallow that huge ego u hav and jus say ok u hav ur opinion and i hav mine, lets change the subject, id be happy to.

i wonder if he can do that....i dont think so...

sin...
MJ

RK.

June 18th, 2005, 10:22 PM

Too bad you're not going to stick around... you might learn the BIG DIFFERENCE between a "criminal prosecution" and a 'civil action". [Hint-- in one, the defendant can go to jail... in the other, there is a money judgement and/or establishment of right/title/interest.]

MJ.. If you stick around I will try to find the patience to explain to Sin the relationship between a criminal prosecution and a civil action where the civil action is brought because of damages caused from a criminal act. In other words they couldn't claim that MJ molested a child and bring a civil action based on that, without filing a criminal report.

This of course requires that criminal charges and the prosecution of them must be brought first in order for a civil action based on the criminal activity to be filed. One would think that with all of Sin's supposed background it the law that he would have already understood this. :rolleyes

MJ_junkie86

June 18th, 2005, 10:25 PM

i like the "supposed" flung in there.
christ i didntknow he worked in the law, no wonder he thinks hes so high and mighty lol

honestly RK, dont worry about it, u know as well as i do that sin aint gonna listen to anyone.

lets jus see if he can take up my chalange.
wats ur thought RK?
MJ

sinecure

June 19th, 2005, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by RK.
MJ.. If you stick around I will try to find the patience to explain to Sin the relationship between a criminal prosecution and a civil action where the civil action is brought because of damages caused from a criminal act. In other words they couldn't claim that MJ molested a child and bring a civil action based on that, without filing a criminal report.

This of course requires that criminal charges and the prosecution of them must be brought first in order for a civil action based on the criminal activity to be filed. One would think that with all of Sin's supposed background it the law that he would have already understood this. :rolleyes

Yeah, RK,... please explain it to me fully. Be certain to compare, contrast and discuss the relationship of the two, and show their comparative relevance with respect to CALIFORNIA LAW.

Please use MJ's previous charges as examples ... :cool

[This ought to be good!http://www.kurts-smilies.de/grinser.gif]

sinecure

June 19th, 2005, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
lol one thing for sure sin, ur good for a laugh.

i wanna go,

As the old country/western song asks: "How can I miss you when you won't go away?" What a whiner.

... jus u post so much bollocks about me and u think its right. i dont care if u dont like MJ or wat u think of him, wat am tryin to show u is that jus coz someone is weird it doesnt make them a pedo.

Yeah... sure.... Triumph said it: "Who are we to pass judgement on this man?

Who amongst us can honestly say that they have never slept with a 12 year old boy after sharing some alcohol and porography in the company of a chimpanzee."

and:

"It's not sexthual, it's beautiful. I put some music on and we have cookies and milk."

so... he's just "weird" huh?? You don't think pedophiles are "weird"?? Maybe not on YOUR side of the Pond... :rolleyes

jus coz u dont like someone, it doesnt mean hes a pedo. and the ONLY real evidence could come from gavin, who has lied about the exact same thing in the past (after being told to by his crazy money grabbin mother) and changed his story countless times.

and from his little brother star, who has also changed his story to make it worse as the case went on.....MJs hand was on his leg/outside of his PJ bottoms/inside the PJ bottoms.
u know, make ur mind up kid.

Yeah... see my above quotes... what normal man sleeps with little boys who are not his family? Have you ever lied about something that you were certain, should the adults in your circle become aware of it, would meet with their disfavor? Ever been on a witness stand as a child and be questioned by a very skillful defense lawyer? WAKE UP!!!

i apologise, does my screen name up set u? my deepest heartfelt apologies sir sin.
and the reason 99% of my posts are in here, tryin to defend mike, and more to the point, tryin to defend myself!
ive said b4 that id more than happily talk about somethin other than MJ. but u cant seem to drop it. hell, if u dont agree jus shut up and change the subject. then magically my posts will not be about MJ.

Aww heck, I'm not "upset" in the slightest over your screen name or what you post or even your blind fascination with MJ... I hate to break it to you this way, but YOU and your childish and ignorant ways really don't mean all that much to me. Sorry for the let-down. But as long as YOU are proudly showing your personality defects, don't mind me... I'll just be the one having fun pointing them out. And that's the way these boards work. If you want to "share" your stuff with like-minded MJ-fawning folks, perhaps you should be displaying your brand of "thinking" on one of the dedicated pro-MJ boards?

ha! since when did i say "netspeak" was "cool"?
yet another thing u dont know about me so decided to make up. find me a post where i said this was anythin OTHER than convinent and i'l bow down, but dont hold ur breath lol.

OK... so I guess we agree... netspeak is geeky, retarded, lazy, ignorant, and ultimately mega-UN-cool... right? All the best reasons for YOU to use it... right?
Fascinating...:rolleyes

u bet u've "seen" more people wit vit, i went to school wit a boy wit it, his name was philip. and its not easy and he used to get bullied. so dont give me that crap about not knowing anythin about it.

...and you and this ONE boy had a deep and techinical discussion re: his vitiligo and how it related to MJ's "condition"... right?
...And you say **I** make YOU laugh?

"perhaps learn something from, those who just MIGHT know a bit more about a subject than you"
how was that worked out? flip a cion, head i know more, tails she knows more?
you've never shown me u know more than me about the subject. all u've shown is that anyone u disagree wit and anyone who is weird is automatically guilty of something.
the only proof u've given is that the boy said it happened. well hes said that b4 at a different trial, and changed his story no end of times. so hes hardly credable.

Yup... some little Chicklette, a MJ-groupie from Jolly Old, will certainly know much more about California law and how it applies to MJ's case than me... Go ahead, flip that coin, that's about as much understanding as you've shown here so far.

lol w1tch, "You try to be nice to these young ones, bring them along slow, try & teach them about the world and this is the thanks you get"
who said we need teachin? am 19 and i know for a fact ive been throught more sh1t than u hav in ur entire life. so dont give any crap about us needin to learn things, coz maybe we already know. and know the bad as well as the good.

Well, W1che... even though she's 19 and thinks she already knows everything, I think we can safely assume that she didn't spend many of those 19 years in school... or if she DID, she didn't pay much attention. "who said we need teachin?"... here... let me raise MY hand. :wave

so sir sin, if u could swallow that huge ego u hav and jus say ok u hav ur opinion and i hav mine, lets change the subject, id be happy to.

i wonder if he can do that....i dont think so...

No more than YOU can... you see... it takes TWO to argue [OK... so DZ does a fine job all by himself... but let's not count HIM here.:wink] and like I said at the beginning-- "How can I miss you when you won't go away?" I'll go away when "I don't find this stuff amusin' anymore." [a Paul Simon reference there.]http://www.kurts-smilies.de/grinser.gif

w1che

June 19th, 2005, 06:49 AM

Quote RK.. In other words they couldn't claim that MJ molested a child and bring a civil action based on that, without filing a criminal report.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yeah RK this should be good. Please do tell us why a person can't file a civil action without a criminal action being filed first. I have to say I have never heard of that law nor is it being followed in my state..

There may not be enough evidence to support a criminal action but could very well be more than you need to support a civil action.

I could be wrong so I will wait to see what you have to say. Make your case...

Idnew

June 19th, 2005, 09:23 AM

I want to know how they can even file a civil action against someone after being found Not Guilty on criminal charges. Think I'm going to see what I can find on this myself since it's bugging me also.

MJ if you don't want to debate with sin or read what he posts there is an ignore button to do that. Think Dumbo has been blocked a lot on this board.

Sin and wunchee just like to pick on younguns for some reason so just argue back if you like or put the old coots on ignore.:wink

It would help though if you did try to type in more proper English. If you were to fill out an application for a job and write like that, I don't think you would get hired and constant writing like that makes you forget how to write properly. Then again maybe that is how ya'll talk and write where you live. If that's the case then continue if you don't know how to write any other way. Please don't think this is bashing you, because it's not. Just my opinion.

Idnew

June 19th, 2005, 09:36 AM

I see this will take a lot of research and I just don't feel like doing it. I can find the procedures of filing but no explanation of how you can file when against someone after they are found Not Guilty in a criminal court.In America, civil procedure usually takes the form of a series of rules and judicial practices. The federal courts follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the state courts follow their own state rules of civil procedure.

In federal courts, evidentiary rules are governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. The state courts follow their own state rules of evidence.

Since they have two different set of rules I guess one court can find you guilty while the other one can find you not guilty:confused

This on OJ's civil trial.Though just nine of the 12 jurors needed to agree on a verdict, the ruling was unanimous. They had only to agree whether there were a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt

DustyBottoms

June 19th, 2005, 01:11 PM

Guilty or not... Doesn't matter. I have news for you.

You can sue anyone - anytime - for anything. :eek

The only questions are will you win and can the loser pay up? :question

Sad, isn't it? :toast

RK.

June 19th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Without writing an essay let me get to the central point

I could not claim that Sin is a pedophile and that he molested my son and then sue him for a million dollars. I would first have to report the criminal activity to the police and make a charge. If I didn't Sin would sue me for slander and the DA could charge me with covering up a criminal activity if in fact it were true. In civil cases which use a "CRIMINAL" activity as the basis for the law suit a charge of such must be made first with the authorities. You can't just claim that someone did something criminal and not report it but sue them for damages because of it. Get real!! The first thing a judge is going to ask is did you report it to the police and if you say no, the judge is going to ask why not. You can't just say "all I want is money I don't care if he goes to jail". The judge will tell you to get out of his court and don't come back until you file a police report of criminal activity. The DA can decide not to pursue the case for lack of evidence however if he does the chances are good the civil case will be thrown out for same. The reason being that the evidence for damages caused by a criminal activity are much the same in both the civil and criminal case. In other words I have to show there is reason to believe that Sin molested my son in order to receive damages. In every case that I can think of where there is "CRIMINAL" activity resulting in a civil law suit, there has been a criminal case or charges of criminal activity brought first as the evidence put forward is what lays the ground work for the civil case. Also the bringing of the criminal case by the DA insulates the plaintiff from a counter suit of slander. I suppose if you dug real hard you might find some odd case where this wasn't the case but in 99.9% of all civil cases involving "CRIMINAL" activity a criminal case or at least charges of criminal activity is filed first.

The OJ case is interesting because OJ was found "not guilty" instead of innocent and there was enough evidence presented in the criminal case to win the civil case brought after the conclusion of the criminal case. Its possible that a civil case will now be brought against MJ based on the evidence presented in the criminal case however considering that most of it was proved to be untrue and the witnesses to be untruthful I suspect that there will not be a civil case. However the woman could not have brought the civil case without first pursuing a criminal complaint.

To say that there is no relationship between criminal and civil cases that involve a "CRIMINAL" activity is just wrong. If you think she could have sued MJ for molesting her son without filing a police report first you are wrong. If a report of child molestation is filed the DA in Ca is required to look into it and bring charges if he thinks there is sufficient reason. If there is an ongoing investigation into criminal activity it always gets tried first and the civil suit is put on hold as the criminal case and investigation takes precedence.

DustyBottoms

June 19th, 2005, 05:16 PM

You are limiting the suit to criminal activity.

Anyone can sue for "damages" without making a police report.

Remember the hot coffee in the lap?

MJ_junkie86

June 19th, 2005, 05:46 PM

ok now i understand why u so messed up about the case.
""Who amongst us can honestly say that they have never slept with a 12 year old boy after sharing some alcohol and porography in the company of a chimpanzee""

ok, sharing some alchol? the kids were seen on more than one occassion by more than one person to STEAL it.
porn, number one, every 12 yr old kid has seen porn (unfotunatly)
number 2, the kids were SEEN to be lookin at it when MJ was no where around. and even asked MJs young cousin to join in their w@nkin session.
a chimpanzee, ok christ knows where u got that one from lol.

netspeak is geeky, retarded, lazy, ignorant, and ultimately mega-UN-cool.
how is "newspeak" geeky? surely using pointlessly long words is being geeky?
retard? see a retarded is a name, albeit a horrible name, for someone who has, for example, downs syndrome. and i think its disgusting u reference it to that.
ignorant? ha, i'd love to hear how u explain that one!
lazy, yep! but as u keep pointing out, am "only" a teenager. wat do u expect sir sin? we cant all be as amazing as u are.

""Well, W1che... even though she's 19 and thinks she already knows everything, I think we can safely assume that she didn't spend many of those 19 years in school... or if she DID, she didn't pay much attention""
erm, maybe u yanks hav a way of stalkin us. but i doubt it. so is that yet another thing u decide to make up?
for ur information, (and jus to shut u up), i hav done all my GCSEs, and Alevels and am doing an NVQ as we speak.
tho i suppose u still think that women aint allowed to go to schools, so i suppose i can excuse ur comment due to ignorence.

well anyway sin. u jus couldnt drop it could u. u had to get the last say.
so go on then sin, hav ur last say again, christ knows u cant let me, a lowly female teenager gettin away wit sayin the last words to high and mighty lawman sir sin.

idnew, i can type perfectly well thank-you. i choose to type how i do because, number one, it annoys Sir, Sin. and number two, because its easier and quicker.
(Oh my God, someone pick up Sir, Sin from the ground, he has just had a heart attack after seeing that the female teenager can actually type the same as he can. What is the world coming to when a teenager can type normally? Next the aliens will attack!)

if yer perfer i can type the same way i speak. see, i actually speak quite normally compared to the rest of England, am from the south, and we 'av no major accent, tho if yer ask my Scottish mate my accent is real weird!!

"Sin and wunchee just like to pick on younguns for some reason"
maybe tryin to recapture their lost youth?
maybe its jus clicked that ur only young once, and they've lost out? so argueing with a teenager makes them feel better?
if we dont watch out they be stealin sweets from babies next!

MJ

w1che

June 19th, 2005, 06:42 PM

Good book report RK but you are wrong as far as the state of Missouri goes. The evidence you are allowed to bring in a civil court is much more liberal & the burden of proof is much more lax than a criminal trial. Many times people chose not to press criminal charges while taking their case to civil court. It could be different in different states I suppose..

RK.

June 19th, 2005, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
You are limiting the suit to criminal activity.

Anyone can sue for "damages" without making a police report.

Remember the hot coffee in the lap?

DB we are discussing this case. I realize that that there are other kinds of civil cases. Making hot coffee is not criminal. Sin implied that the mother wanting to bring a civil suit against MJ had nothing to do with this case. That is not true. In order for her to bring a civil suit in this case she had to make a criminal complaint to the police. Sin indicated that this was only a criminal case and not motivated by the mother wanting to bring a civil law suit for money. Thats not true. My point is she went to the police after getting a lawyer for her civil suit and made the charges against MJ... She did this in order for her to be able to bring a civil suit for damages. The reason the DA pursued this is because she filed a criminal complaint against MJ. Without her complaint the DA could not have gone after MJ. My point is she hired a civil attny first and then went to the police with the complaint. To me that means she and her lawyer are gold diggers. What precipitated these charges was the mother and her attny wanting to get money from Jackson. In order to do that they had to sick the DA on him first because they were claiming "CRIMINAL" actions as reason for the damages. Her motivations are highly suspect and are the reason she was put on the stand to show that the motivation for the charges was her greed.

From Sin
Read this slowly-- The most serious crime charged to MJ was a lewed act with a child. Please explain to me in American English [or use your own brand, if you must] just how the motives of the mother are relevant to the prosecution or the defense of that crime. Was he given a "pass" by a confused and distracted jury because the victim had a nutty mother?... looks that way to me. All this crap you and others here are spewing about "Look at the EVIDENCE..." well, I might just exhort YOU to do exactly that... look at the evidence that the kid was molested. You'd have to ignore and completely throw out the kid's testimony... at the trial and on the video... because his mother is a nutcake?

What Sin doesn't seem to understand is the reason MJ was charged was because of her accusations of criminal actions. Her motivation for making the charge is most certainly germane to the case. My point is she made the charge in order to bring a civil suit for money after the criminal case. The Jury obviously believed that to be true and it is one of the reasons why they found MJ not guilty on all charges including the holding against her will charge the mother had made. Sin seems to think the mother and the charges are seperate....they are not. MJ's defense wasn't that they couldn't prove it. The defense was that the accusers and their witnesses were lying. The jury believed that as well and for good reason based on the testimony. Also IMO her lawyer coached her as to what charges to bring and how to present them so that later it would make the civil suit a slam dunk if the criminal case was successful. They tried to set MJ up.....they failed......and rightly so IMO.

This is how criminal and civil cases are so often linked to one another.
:wall <------ its not that hard to understand.

Idnew

June 20th, 2005, 12:47 AM

That made it much clearer to me RK. Thank you for taking the time to do that.

A civil suit can be brought against someone........for say some kind of non criminal offense...........such as the hot coffee, the fall in the store etc. , but if it's a law broken or supposidly broken then it must first go to a criminal court. I get it.:clap

MJ I prefer normal typing instead of that netwhack or whatever you called it writing. You were more easy to understand and for sure sounded more intellegent, but write as you see fit.

MJ_junkie86

June 20th, 2005, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Idnew
MJ I prefer normal typing instead of that netwhack

i think sin called it netspeak, dunno if thats the real name tho....

ok, i shall type normally, jus for you :)
tho you might have to keep reminding me!

MJ

sinecure

June 20th, 2005, 02:18 AM

While I appreciate the time and effort expended, the question remains: Where to even start with you, RK...? :question

Let's get some preliminary stuff out of the way as to California law.

In a felony criminal trial, the "plaintiff" is THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA... not the victim, not the victim's mother, father, brother, etc. ..but THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.... and in this case, the defendant was MJ, et al. Generally, there are no monetary awards [aside from perhaps some form of "restitution" as awarded by the Judge] but there are other possible sanctions of loss of liberty, or even life. The entire process is designed to punish lawbreakers and perhaps deter others.

In a CIVIL case [and for the purposes of this discussion , we can leave out Small Claims, Justice, and Municipal courts] it is a named Plaintiff vs. a named Defendant. No jail or prison time can be sought... only establishment of right, title, and interest, as well as "monetary damages". The Plaintiff must show "damages" and the process is designed to attempt to make the aggrieved party "whole" again, conterminous with their proven injury or loss. "Damages" are usually awarded, and these can be actual damages, "special" damages ["pain and suffering"] or punitive damages.

Now comes the hard part... It'll be difficult without a confusing flurry of cut/pasting regarding what **I** wrote vs. what **YOU** wrote. While that's the most efficient way to be certain that I address each of your misconceptions, I'll TRY to minimize it. I suppose I should start off with your central error-- You wrote: I could not claim that Sin is a pedophile and that he molested my son and then sue him for a million dollars. I would first have to report the criminal activity to the police and make a charge.

Nope... not so. You could sue me for damages--which you'd have to prove-- to YOU. [Remember, in your set-up, YOU are suing me. Now I'm gonna assume that YOU are suing me as the legal guardian, as well as on behalf of whatever minor you selected as the plaintiff.]

No police report or criminal complaint is needed. None at all.

So, when you write:
Sin implied that the mother wanting to bring a civil suit against MJ had nothing to do with this case. That is not true. In order for her to bring a civil suit in this case she had to make a criminal complaint to the police. Sin indicated that this was only a criminal case and not motivated by the mother wanting to bring a civil law suit for money. Thats not true.

YOU are the one in error. MY "implication" [actually it was a flat-out assertion] is truthful and will stand. The criminal case was brought to determine if MJ diddled the little boy... nothing more. The defense made it into what YOU'VE obviously swallowed here... by the well-known defense artifice of putting the MOTHER on trial.

My point is she went to the police after getting a lawyer for her civil suit and made the charges against MJ... She did this in order for her to be able to bring a civil suit for damages.

Nope... it wasn't at all necessary. Her lawyer would get nothing from a criminal prosecution, nor would she be likely to get any money. The negatives are there for her... public exposure of the embarrassing acts for her, her family and the victim, the stress of a prolonged trial, etc.

The reason the DA pursued this is because she filed a criminal complaint against MJ. Without her complaint the DA could not have gone after MJ. Well, yeah.... unless MJ molested the DA... :wink

My point is she hired a civil attny first and then went to the police with the complaint. To me that means she and her lawyer are gold diggers. What precipitated these charges was the mother and her attny wanting to get money from Jackson. In order to do that they had to sick the DA on him first because they were claiming "CRIMINAL" actions as reason for the damages. Not true at all.... makes a great story, but not true at all.

YOU can break my leg in a bar fight, maliciously set fire to my house, or poison my horse... and I can seek monetary damages from you WITHOUT filing a criminal complaint... look it up, it's a fact.

Her motivations are highly suspect and are the reason she was put on the stand to show that the motivation for the charges was her greed. Ummmm.... Jeez, RK...let's THINK a little here-- she was the PROSECUTION'S WITNESS... why would the DA put her on the stand to show her "greed"?:rolleyes :rolleyes

And then you write:

What Sin doesn't seem to understand is the reason MJ was charged was because of her accusations of criminal actions. Her motivation for making the charge is most certainly germane to the case. My point is she made the charge in order to bring a civil suit for money after the criminal case. The Jury obviously believed that to be true and it is one of the reasons why they found MJ not guilty on all charges including the holding against her will charge the mother had made. Sin seems to think the mother and the charges are seperate....they are not. MJ's defense wasn't that they couldn't prove it. The defense was that the accusers and their witnesses were lying. The jury believed that as well and for good reason based on the testimony. Also IMO her lawyer coached her as to what charges to bring and how to present them so that later it would make the civil suit a slam dunk if the criminal case was successful. They tried to set MJ up.....they failed......and rightly so IMO.

Her "motivation" was "germane to the case" up until MJ was held-to-answer at the Preliminary Hearing. After that it was only a very large red herring successfully employed by the defense. Had MJ and his attorneys really believed that this was a complete shake-down, [and in conformity with YOUR theories re: CAlif. law] why-oh-why didn't THEY make a police complaint of oh... say "extortion" ???

[b]This is how criminal and civil cases are so often linked to one another.
<------ its not that hard to understand. It MUST be that hard to understand ... for some of you out there, so you simply make-up your own fairytale laws [from Neverland, no doubt] and applications of those laws...

:rolleyes

RK.

June 20th, 2005, 04:36 AM

Well believe what you want Sin. Personally I think the defense got it right and so did the Jury. :)

dave404

June 20th, 2005, 05:39 AM

Sin,

Are you saying that if the mother had gone straight to a civil suit, the fact that she had never reported these allegations to the police wouldn't have counted strongly against her case? I find that hard to believe.

I have to agree with RK's basic interpretation of the trial. The defense contended that the accusers and their witnesses were lying. And they produced some good evidence to back up their claim. Game over.

w1che

June 20th, 2005, 07:11 AM

:lol This is getting funny now.. People typing things they dream up as fact and other people buying into it as the truth. Then along comes Dave & declares the game over.. :think

A civil trial & a criminal trial have nothing to do with each other. OJ was found not guilty of his crime in criminal court but was found to have caused the two deaths in civil court..

If nothing else this thread shows what a good defense lawyer can do to make people think the way they want them to.. Had MJ been an average guy with a public defender as his lawyer he would be in jail right now. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

Idnew

June 20th, 2005, 08:38 AM

Are you saying that if the mother had gone straight to a civil suit, the fact that she had never reported these allegations to the police wouldn't have counted strongly against her case? I find that hard to believe.
I do to

So if someone breaks into my house and I know from a witness who did it I can just take them to civil court and sue for the things they stole from me and never have to report it to the police? Wouldn't the first question a lawyer would ask is..........did you report this to the police. So I'm just going to sue him for damages but he's going to get off scott free from from being arrested? That makes no sense Sin.

There has to be something in the State Statues about this. I'm sure the laws are prolly about the same on this in every state.

OJ was found not guilty of his crime in criminal court but was found to have caused the two deaths in civil court.. But if the State had not brought charges against OJ........say he never went to trial, but the Goldman's assumed he was responsible for the deaths............they could just have taken him to civil court? No that sure doesn't make sense.

w1che

June 20th, 2005, 10:10 AM

Idnew one way to look at it. It's up to the state to bring or not to bring a criminal case to court and the state should base their decision on the evidence & can the state convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence that will be "allowed" in court (allowed because of the rules that govern in criminal cases) that a defendant is guilty.

You bring a civil suit without the help of the state & civil cases are not bound by the same rules as criminal cases are. Examples, hear say can be brought into a civil case, you don't have to read the defendant their rights & in most cases you can bring up past history. There are many more but you get the idea.

The main thing is you only have to convince a jury on the preponderance of that much more liberal evidence & not beyond a reasonable doubt.

dave404

June 20th, 2005, 11:08 AM

w1che,

I agree with you (there's a surprise). I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by game over. I meant, in a criminal justice trial, once the defense can show that the prosecution's key witnesses are unreliable, you might as well go home. Once the jury gets the idea that the prosecution witnesses could well be lying to them, you won't get a conviction, unless you have other cast-iron evidence.

As for MJ being an non-average guy, well an average Joe would have been unable to afford the legal fees, and probably would have struck a plea bargain. If you can find an average Joe that lives on an enormous ranch with ihis own private security force, llamas, chimps, etc., that is.

But the bottom line is simple. Can you find a serious felony case where (i) the prosecution mainly relied on witness testimony, (ii) those witnesses were mostly shown to be unreliable or untruthful, but (iii) the defendant was still found guilty? I doubt it.

sinecure

June 20th, 2005, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by dave404
w1che,

I agree with you (there's a surprise). I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by game over. I meant, in a criminal justice trial, once the defense can show that the prosecution's key witnesses are unreliable, you might as well go home. Once the jury gets the idea that the prosecution witnesses could well be lying to them, you won't get a conviction, unless you have other cast-iron evidence.

As for MJ being an non-average guy, well an average Joe would have been unable to afford the legal fees, and probably would have struck a plea bargain. If you can find an average Joe that lives on an enormous ranch with ihis own private security force, llamas, chimps, etc., that is.

But the bottom line is simple. Can you find a serious felony case where (i) the prosecution mainly relied on witness testimony, (ii) those witnesses were mostly shown to be unreliable or untruthful, but (iii) the defendant was still found guilty? I doubt it.

Well, let's see....(i) and (iii) I've had a no-body murder case-- entirely circumstantial-- that resulted in a conviction. Prosecution witnesses were prostitutes, druggies and a homeless guy who spent a lot of time talking to his imaginary friends.

As for (ii), You didn't make notes of the OJ trial, did you? Had you done so, you might have noted that the defense was quite similar in structure to the MJ trial... "Nevermind what my client did, just look at the prosecution's case-in-chief, which is composed of liars and scoundrels..." And, since the prosecution is essentially limited in so many ways, and all it takes is a hive-thinking jury, a guilty defendant goes free.

Now, while the prosecution in the OJ trial presented a veritable blizzard of forensic "hard" evidence to consider, the defense used the techinque of "poisoning the well" by "showing" that such evidence was collected, analyzed and stored by an inept, malicious organization, populated by incompetent liars and racist buffoons.... nevermind what the defendant did.

Oh, and spare me the "Better a hundred guilty go free..." crap.:wink

RK.

June 20th, 2005, 03:16 PM

W1che wrote:
A civil trial & a criminal trial have nothing to do with each other. OJ was found not guilty of his crime in criminal court but was found to have caused the two deaths in civil court..

What is it you don't understand that if a criminal and a civil trial are based on the same accusation of a criminal act, that they are absolutely connected. Connected by the accusation, the evidence, the witnesses, the defendant, the accuser, etc. The rules of evidence may be different for each but the idea that they happen in a vacuum separate from one another is BS. The civil trial often uses the outcome of the criminal trial as the reason for the civil trial. Or, as in the OJ case, that a miscarriage of justice happened in the criminal trial and the plaintiffs are seeking compensation and restitution. In the OJ case they presented the evidence put forward in the criminal trial and showed that a different verdict could have been reasonably reached. The two trials absolutely connected. The difference is the punishment that is meted out by the court if the defendant loses.

If the MJ case goes to a civil suit, all the evidence from the criminal trial and the statements of witnesses etc will find its way into that case. Absolutely connected to one another. Which is the reason the mother and her lawyer made a criminal complaint in order to try and set up the civil suit that would result from the outcome of the criminal trial. Had they been successful with their concocted story of what happened the civil suit would already be filed with the court today. The fact that they were caught in lies and mis-characterization of the facts, will probably keep a civil suit from being filed. The two things absolutely connected to one another.

If they had won the criminal case then a civil suit for money would follow. If they lost the criminal case, then unless there is some major flaw in the criminal case, a civil suit is very unlikely. That is true of most cases involving a "CRIMINAL" accusation. This has nothing to do with non criminal civil suits like the hot coffee suit mentioned earlier.

*note to MJ*
Now you can see why I said:
MJ.. If you stick around I will try to find the patience to explain to Sin the relationship between a criminal prosecution and a civil action where the civil action is brought because of damages caused from a criminal act.
Patience barely covers what it takes. :lol

w1che

June 20th, 2005, 04:10 PM

RK this stuff you are putting out as fact is wrong to it's core. I don't know what state you live in but you need to do some fact checking because I doubt that it's that much different from Missouri. There are many civil suits filed with no criminal action taken first.

Battered wife is one, another is wrongful death, another is fraud. Pick your own bread & butter..

Yes you can use the same evidence in both cases but you can use much more evidence in the civil suit. The civil suit has nothing to do with what happen in the criminal trial at all..

Like someone has said before.. You believe what you want to believe but a good trial lawyer can make you believe things that are not even there..

MJ_junkie86

June 20th, 2005, 04:57 PM

"Patience barely covers what it takes."

yeah i know!
dont bother to try. just let them think they're right. so much easier.
let them get on with it. MJ has been found not guilty, and no matter what they think, that wont change.

so just let them get on with it....

MJ

dave404

June 20th, 2005, 05:39 PM

Sin,

Your court case sounds unusual, but I guess you had to be there.

I notice you didn't answer this question:
Are you saying that if the mother had gone straight to a civil suit, the fact that she had never reported these allegations to the police wouldn't have counted strongly against her case?
What I saw about the OJ case was a documentary made and shown in this country after it was all over, probably never screened in the US. I found the defense's argument quite compelling at the time. IIRC, there was a bloody fingerprint, clear and unsmeared, in a location (I think it was part of the car console) where no-one could have got their hand if they tried, and therefore someone must have been planting evidence, But I admit it was a long time ago.

It's a similar point, though. Once you succeed in introducing reasonable doubt into a jury's mind that the evidence may have been tampered with, the chances of a conviction are very low. In this case, OJ may really have done it (the civil suit succeeded), but once you begin to think the police may have over-egged the pudding, it's all over.

Idnew

June 20th, 2005, 06:05 PM

I'm getting :dizzy but find this all interesting

SinNope... not so. You could sue me for damages--which you'd have to prove-- to YOU. [Remember, in your set-up, YOU are suing me. Now I'm gonna assume that YOU are suing me as the legal guardian, as well as on behalf of whatever minor you selected as the plaintiff.]

No police report or criminal complaint is needed. None at all.

W1CheYou bring a civil suit without the help of the state & civil cases are not bound by the same rules as criminal cases are. Examples, hear say can be brought into a civil case, you don't have to read the defendant their rights & in most cases you can bring up past history. There are many more but you get the idea.

The main thing is you only have to convince a jury on the preponderance of that much more liberal evidence & not beyond a reasonable doubt.

We are using two good cases here because I did hear on the news that the mother would probably file a civil suit.

I'm still trying to figure out how two different jury's are basically going to hear the same thing but may vote different.........like the OJ case and how that is even allowed to happen. I realize that's the law but still it doesn't make sense to be able to turn around and do that. No matter who you are.