Micheal Jackson?

[1disneydood]

It's 50/50. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. But just think to yourself, would I want my kid around him (not knowing guilty or not yet)?

I didn't say I thought he's guilty. But still he worries me. BTW he's not "weird" by my standards. :lol:

 

[civileng68]

.

Originally posted by 1disneydood
It's 50/50. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. But just think to yourself, would I want my kid around him (not knowing guilty or not yet)?

I didn't say I thought he's guilty. But still he worries me. BTW he's not "weird" by my standards. :lol:

Oh i definately wouldnt want him around my child. I wouldnt want anyone accused of that around my child. I'm just saying that he has every right to be in the park as anyone else would have.

I wouldn't want him around my child but it wouldnt be illegal for him to be around my child. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

 

[Scooter]

In America a man is innocent until proven guilty.

Before we condemn this man lets hear what the court says.

 

[joel_maxwell]

maybe the stitch thing didnt work out in the AE rehab and they were giving michael an audition to replace alien. he would scare the crap out of me. sorry michael, but i think you should ask for a refund on the nose job.

 

[civileng68]

.

Originally posted by jmaxwell007
maybe the stitch thing didnt work out in the AE rehab and they were giving michael an audition to replace alien. he would scare the crap out of me. sorry michael, but i think you should ask for a refund on the nose job.

maybe if he had any kind of childhood and his father didn't constantly tell him how big his nose was and whip him with a steel cord he wouldn't have had the complex bad enough to always feel he was ugly (before the surgeries).

I seriously think it's unfortunate everyone attacks his image like they do. Very unfortunate.

 

[joel_maxwell]

yes, unfortunate that people have bad childhoods and emotional scares...................... but it was his adulthood choice to make his nose look even worse than it did before and chose to go from a black man to a white man.

i am very sympathetic towards abuse victims but i am not convinced that his best theropy for an abusive childhood is by carving up his nose, turning his skin white on his face, and PUTTING himself in the position to possibly be accused of child molestation even if he is guilty or not.

but im not a doctor..............................

 

[missy28]

Ok, I normally don't enter debates like this but this is one I couldn't resist... I am a prosecutor and have a unique perspective on it. Civileng68, you say there's no evidence against him, but have you read the case file? Do you work in the District Attorney's Office? Are you sitting on the grand jury? Have you heard any sworn testimony? Have you spoken with the detectives on the case? My guess is NO... but that you are getting all your information from the media-- the liberal, anti-prosecution of anyone famous media. Unless and until you are working on the case in some capacity or sworn as a juror, no one can say YES or NO as to his guilt.

In reference to the search warrant... search warrants are not nice tidy little things... law enforcement is LOOKING for things, and it is necessary to upend some things sometimes to do that. And it's legal, so if you don't like it, talk to your congressmen and senators about changing the law.

He's not being unduly prosecuted because he's weird looking or because Tom Sneddon has a vendetta (he wrote that song AFTER he bought the first victim off)-- he's being prosecuted because the law enforcement agency and District Attorney found there was enough evidence to take it to a grand jury... so let's wait and see what the grand jury does.

And if I were representing Michael Jackson, I'd tell him to stay away from places that little kiddies linger-- like Disney World-- in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He apparently doesn't care. And as for the "I've had a lousy childhood" defense-- grow up, get over it, and move on, people... we could all blame bad adult behavior on something in our childhood. Juries aren't buying that defense, thank God. Enough of the victimization of America. If he's guilty (and as a prosecutor, I trust another prosecutor when he's says he is guilty, but again, I wouldn't know for sure unless I heard sworn testimony) he needs to be LOCKED UP for the rest of his life. He's taking advantage of his fame and money and has for years. Enough is enough.

Go ahead, flame away... but that's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

 

[joel_maxwell]

if i could have stated that, i would have..................... yeeeehhhhhh, somebody finally said it. i guess i would have but i dont have the legal background to make sense of all legal stuff, but right on about the victim crap.....................

oh, and by the way, if they do find him not guilty, the should lock up the parents that let thier kids go to his house for the night............

parenting 101, dont let your children spend the night with adult black/white man at a ranch called "Neverland" in his bed. just a thought.

 

[civileng68]

ok

Originally posted by missy28
Ok, I normally don't enter debates like this but this is one I couldn't resist... I am a prosecutor and have a unique perspective on it. Civileng68, you say there's no evidence against him, but have you read the case file? Do you work in the District Attorney's Office? Are you sitting on the grand jury? Have you heard any sworn testimony? Have you spoken with the detectives on the case? My guess is NO... but that you are getting all your information from the media-- the liberal, anti-prosecution of anyone famous media. Unless and until you are working on the case in some capacity or sworn as a juror, no one can say YES or NO as to his guilt.

In reference to the search warrant... search warrants are not nice tidy little things... law enforcement is LOOKING for things, and it is necessary to upend some things sometimes to do that. And it's legal, so if you don't like it, talk to your congressmen and senators about changing the law.

He's not being unduly prosecuted because he's weird looking or because Tom Sneddon has a vendetta (he wrote that song AFTER he bought the first victim off)-- he's being prosecuted because the law enforcement agency and District Attorney found there was enough evidence to take it to a grand jury... so let's wait and see what the grand jury does.

And if I were representing Michael Jackson, I'd tell him to stay away from places that little kiddies linger-- like Disney World-- in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He apparently doesn't care. And as for the "I've had a lousy childhood" defense-- grow up, get over it, and move on, people... we could all blame bad adult behavior on something in our childhood. Juries aren't buying that defense, thank God. Enough of the victimization of America. If he's guilty (and as a prosecutor, I trust another prosecutor when he's says he is guilty, but again, I wouldn't know for sure unless I heard sworn testimony) he needs to be LOCKED UP for the rest of his life. He's taking advantage of his fame and money and has for years. Enough is enough.

Go ahead, flame away... but that's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Ok, here's my rebuttle to your statements:


No, I have not seen the case file and do not know the evidence but neither do you. So, no I don't know for a fact that there's no evidence, but at the same time, you have no facts that say there is. You feel that the search warrant shows that there must be some form of evidence. that's incorrect. Many warrants are based on presumption.
About tearing a place up, you are wrong. You can move things and remove things and displace things (however you want to put it), however, you cannot bust through walls (without the owner's witnessing), destroy floors, destroy furniture and not replace anything. OK, so they destoyed some things. If they did not find anything in those items, why are they not replaced?

About Tom Sneddon and "buying" off the first victim. I'll switch that on you. He did not "buy" off the first "victim". First off, if I were a parent and I knew my son had been sexually assaulted, no money on earth would satisfy my craving for a conviction. I would want to kill the person. I think the father by accepting that money said in no particular words that Jackson was "not guilty". Even if he did do it, the point is, taking that money made a big statement about that father.

Sneddon was not after him the first time around but rather the second time (now) after that song was written. Sneddon is a dirty man in my opinion.

About telling people to move on that have had traumatic experiences in their lives. Hey, he's not making excuses. I don't hear him saying "I have issues with kids because of my dad". He simply had some surgeries and everyone's in his business about why, so he says why. You ask, you get an answer. I think instead of complaining about his childhood, in his case it has mentally damaged him.

He is different and he looks horrible, but there are reasons. Not everyone in the psychiatric ward of the hospital is really sane and just in there because they want to be the victim. He really has problems.

About Disney World. To say that he's in a place where little kids is and should stay away is complete crap. Everywhere you go are kids, unless you are at an adult only place, which is not anywhere I go.

Unless he's at Disney with a kid's head poking out of his zipper you cannot put that on him. It is completely unfair.

I know the media is liberal, and I hate it! I am very conservative but just totally disagree with this one.

Convicted murderers are put under less stress than Jackson is as an ACCUSED person.

Oh by the way, how do you explain the DSS in Ca, having video of the boy (accuser) and his mother claiming that Jackson has never done anything sexually to him? Or was that a buy off too?

 

[civileng68]

.

Originally posted by jmaxwell007
if i could have stated that, i would have..................... yeeeehhhhhh, somebody finally said it. i guess i would have but i dont have the legal background to make sense of all legal stuff, but right on about the victim crap.....................

oh, and by the way, if they do find him not guilty, the should lock up the parents that let thier kids go to his house for the night............

parenting 101, dont let your children spend the night with adult black/white man at a ranch called "Neverland" in his bed. just a thought.

If they find him not guilty, then everyone should leave him alone. However, I agree, this is the parent's fault for letting their kids stay there.

I'm not saying I'd let me kids love on him. My point is, he's being accused by the same parents who leave their children at his place overnight when he was accused of this in the early 90's.




One more point: did anyone not see the reporter that burned him in that TV special? Well did anyone not see the second one that came out that showed the reporter basically saying everything was fine and normal, yet on TV he claimed it was odd.

He needed a shocking story, gave one and used another person at his expense.

 

[missy28]

Civineng68, I never said a search warrant shows that there is evidence-- I can't find how you would've gotten that from my last post-- BUT a search warrant does have to be signed by a judge and there must be a probable cause threshold that must be met. If a judge finds that there is probable cause, he or she will issue the search warrant. There is no law, at least in Georgia, governing the protocol of the execution of search warrants as it relates to detruction of property. The proper remedy for that would be a civil suit on the part of the person harmed by damage done during the execution of the search warrant. Sometimes it IS necessary to go through walls, doors, what have you because arguably people HIDE evidence in all sorts of places. If a drug dealer knows a search warrant is coming, it's not uncommon for them to hide the evidence in the backs of toilets, in ceilings, in walls, you name it. There are some very clever criminals out there.

Regarding the first case, there was a law in place in California at the time that allowed defendants in a criminal case to settle civilly with a victim in order that the case not be prosecuted. The legislature made an amendment to this law, which they, not by chance, call the Michael jackson amendment so that cannot happen anymore. So, if the entire Legislature of California saw fit to change the law after Jackson pulled that garbage, I'd say it is a fair enough assessment that he did in fact buy the kid off. Now, if I were a parent, there would be no amount of money that could buy my child's innocence back, but again, if I were that kid's mother, he wouldn't have been hanging out at Neverland to begin with.

He doesn't have to make excuses about his childhood... you were doing that for him. But all it takes is one look at him to realize this guy would be a lot better off on high doses of some sort of psychotropic drug, and put in a pplace where he doesn't have access to prepubescent boys.

And as far as explaining anything evidentiary, as I said before, I can't. I haven't seen the evidence and neither have you. I never said the guy was guilty-- what I said was I trust another prosecutor to give the grand jury the information THEY need to make the intial decision.

And, I imagine that even IF he was at WDW with, as you say, "a kid's head poking out of his zipper", there would still be people that would make excuses for him, and blame the child in some way. When are people accountable for their own actions?

--so, even without looking at the evidence, my gut tells me that Jackson is about as innocent as OJ... but I'm content to wait and see what the grand jury does.

Civileng68, I always appreciate a good intellectual debate! thanks!

 

[Toy Trumpet]

Right on Missy! I totally agree with your points... I'd put more here, but since you said it all already, there's no need...

MJ is innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time, he is currently accused!


PS-I did Private Message you a longer version of this!

 

[Dean[AU]]

<img src="http://www.iloveredmagnet.com/neverland_2.jpg">

 

[civileng68]

.

Originally posted by missy28
Civineng68, I never said a search warrant shows that there is evidence-- I can't find how you would've gotten that from my last post-- BUT a search warrant does have to be signed by a judge and there must be a probable cause threshold that must be met. If a judge finds that there is probable cause, he or she will issue the search warrant. There is no law, at least in Georgia, governing the protocol of the execution of search warrants as it relates to detruction of property. The proper remedy for that would be a civil suit on the part of the person harmed by damage done during the execution of the search warrant. Sometimes it IS necessary to go through walls, doors, what have you because arguably people HIDE evidence in all sorts of places. If a drug dealer knows a search warrant is coming, it's not uncommon for them to hide the evidence in the backs of toilets, in ceilings, in walls, you name it. There are some very clever criminals out there.

Regarding the first case, there was a law in place in California at the time that allowed defendants in a criminal case to settle civilly with a victim in order that the case not be prosecuted. The legislature made an amendment to this law, which they, not by chance, call the Michael jackson amendment so that cannot happen anymore. So, if the entire Legislature of California saw fit to change the law after Jackson pulled that garbage, I'd say it is a fair enough assessment that he did in fact buy the kid off. Now, if I were a parent, there would be no amount of money that could buy my child's innocence back, but again, if I were that kid's mother, he wouldn't have been hanging out at Neverland to begin with.

He doesn't have to make excuses about his childhood... you were doing that for him. But all it takes is one look at him to realize this guy would be a lot better off on high doses of some sort of psychotropic drug, and put in a pplace where he doesn't have access to prepubescent boys.

And as far as explaining anything evidentiary, as I said before, I can't. I haven't seen the evidence and neither have you. I never said the guy was guilty-- what I said was I trust another prosecutor to give the grand jury the information THEY need to make the intial decision.

And, I imagine that even IF he was at WDW with, as you say, "a kid's head poking out of his zipper", there would still be people that would make excuses for him, and blame the child in some way. When are people accountable for their own actions?

--so, even without looking at the evidence, my gut tells me that Jackson is about as innocent as OJ... but I'm content to wait and see what the grand jury does.

Civileng68, I always appreciate a good intellectual debate! thanks!

My rebuttle continues on the stand:


Even if there is a law in Ca. to allow the "pay off" of cases, like even you said, there is no amount of money available to shut me up with my child being assaulted.

About his childhood, I do feel for him. I won't make excuses for him. In fact, to me it has nothing to do with his "thing" for children. I'm just talking about the people that slam him for the way he looks. He looks the way he does for the reason I mentioned. He wasn't making excuses. He doesn't have to answer to anyone about the way he looks or any surgery he's had, but when asked he answers. The guy has the mentality of a 12 year old. I mean, he still sits indian style on the floor during interviews, even on couches. I meant the childhood comments directed towards the way he looked, not how he deals with children.

About the "kid in the zipper". Listen, I would never make excuses for him in that regard but sooner or later when parents keep letting their kids go in closed rooms with him, even after all the allegations, one has to wonder if parents are throwing their children into the fire to hopefully gain fortune. Jackson surely has to be held accountable for anything that DOES happen, but the eyebrows have to come up sooner or later to wonder with all the negative attention he's gotten, and parents still let their kids in, if it's about extortion.

I go back to my original point though that he should be allowed at Disney. If they stopped him they'd have to start doing background checks on everyone who walks through the gates. Also, he has a million eyes on him whenever he's in public, he's not going to "fiddle with the faddle" in broad daylight, if it's even happened at all.

The defense rests, FOR NOW.

 

[joel_maxwell]

Re: ok

Originally posted by civileng68
Ok, here's my rebuttle to your statements:

Unless he's at Disney with a kid's head poking out of his zipper you cannot put that on him. It is completely unfair.

wow, now i will have nightmares for the rest of the week. kids in michaels pants............... oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[civileng68]

nice

Originally posted by Dean[AU]
<img src="http://www.iloveredmagnet.com/neverland_2.jpg">

Great pic Dean! :lol:

 

[missy28]

civileng68, I think we're both on the same page... I do agree with you that parents of this new victim need to be scrutinized as well, because there is no way I would ever let my child "hang out" with man who has his own monkey and hyperbaric chamber...

But about the whole looks thing-- none of his brothers have this weird addiction to plastic surgery... I've long been of the opinion that LaToya and Michael are actually one and the same!!

I agree, Disney World is a public place... and I'm sure Disney Legal doesn't have those VIP tour giudes just to show him where the bathrooms are... they are there to keep an eye on him. But, that begs the question, too, of why does he even need to go to Disney World when he has his own amusement park in his backyard?

 

[wannabeBelle]

I am kind of on the fence on this one. I am not so sure Michael Jackson did it or didnt do it. I do know that if I were a parent no force on Earth would allow me to leacve my child alone in a bedroom with an publicly accused child molester. That is just plain dumb. If Michael stands trial for that, then the parents should be accused of certainly neglect at very least, child endangement possibly and maybe other charges that I Am unaware of at the moment.
Also I appreciate Michael's right to be in the park just the same as anyone else. However Disney cannot stop any person who has been accused or even indicted from visiting the parks. It is just not possible and probably an illegal form of discrimination. That having been said What could his PR People be thinking??? Assuming that he is completely innocent, he is being handled VERY badly by the people who are supposed to be watching out for him. Get some people around you who have a clue there, Michael!!! Belle

 

[civileng68]

well

Originally posted by wannabeBelle
I am kind of on the fence on this one. I am not so sure Michael Jackson did it or didnt do it. I do know that if I were a parent no force on Earth would allow me to leacve my child alone in a bedroom with an publicly accused child molester. That is just plain dumb. If Michael stands trial for that, then the parents should be accused of certainly neglect at very least, child endangement possibly and maybe other charges that I Am unaware of at the moment.
Also I appreciate Michael's right to be in the park just the same as anyone else. However Disney cannot stop any person who has been accused or even indicted from visiting the parks. It is just not possible and probably an illegal form of discrimination. That having been said What could his PR People be thinking??? Assuming that he is completely innocent, he is being handled VERY badly by the people who are supposed to be watching out for him. Get some people around you who have a clue there, Michael!!! Belle

Well Missy, in fact his brothers are not that normal, they just seem normal compared to Michael. Also his brothers are all older and it seems Michael was the one his dad hated so much.

Belle, about his PR people, well he doesn't have much of a PR crew right now. He let most of them go if they didn't quit already. He doesn't trust anyone anymore and it's pretty much ruined his relationship with everyone but his make up artists, who works on him 20 of 24 hours a day Im sure.

 

[missy28]

hey toy trumpet-- I PM'ed you back, btw...