[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Would you not want to protect other children from similar abuse? For monetary gain?

As a kid, probably not. Infact it probably wouldn't even enter my head at that age.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Because he was dead and unable to be interrogated when the abuse became public, and also because all of the evidence is based on witness statement. Yes, an overwhelming number of witness statements but nonetheless; there is little to zero physical evidence of his crimes and he can't dispute the witness statements either. It's obviously not a direct comparison but it does show that we are sometimes happy to accept the guilt of people accused after their death and without physical evidence.

You seem to have made quite a study of both of these cases to be able to talk at length about the similarities and differences in both cases. And as with everything, you assume no one else knows anything.

I'll leave it now, when you start lecturing me on witness statements and how to interpret evidence, I think you're taking the piss.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Nancy.

Hi Kaz, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't found guilty in 2005 like they were hoping, and that irritated a lot of people, so this is their way of saying "justice has finally been served" like it's some kind of closure, when in fact it isn't.

Personally, I need more evidence than two self admitted liars going into graphic detail about sexual fantasies (which are said to be remarkably similar to Victor Gutierez's - "MJ was my lover book") - That to me doesn't prove a damn thing, nor does trial by public opinion - which seems to be the way we're going these days and that's actually quite terrifiying, tbh.

Couldn't agree more.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Great post Nancy, Why people are so willing to believe these too is very telling.Job done boys.

I had him as guilty long before these 2 came out.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Nancy.

Hi Kaz, I think it stems from the fact that he wasn't found guilty in 2005 like they were hoping, and that irritated a lot of people, so this is their way of saying "justice has finally been served" like it's some kind of closure, when in fact it isn't.

Personally, I need more evidence than two self admitted liars going into graphic detail about sexual fantasies (which are said to be remarkably similar to Victor Gutierez's - "MJ was my lover book") - That to me doesn't prove a damn thing, nor does trial by public opinion - which seems to be the way we're going these days and that's actually quite terrifiying, tbh.

Well said Nancy,and isn't it funny how some facts are conveniently overlooked, I do feel sorry for MJs kids and family it must be like watching a public execution. And the director of the documentry Dan Reed must be rubbing his hands together with glee,he's never had so much publicity.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

when you start lecturing me on witness statements and how to interpret evidence, I think you're taking the piss.

Yes, Livia, that's called professional arrogance. It's not out of character, sadly.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I had him as guilty long before these 2 came out.

I know you did as a lot of people did and do , but according to the USA court they didn't feel he was .

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes, Livia, that's called professional arrogance. It's not out of character, sadly.

Why is it professional arrogance? What's arrogant is that you think you can lecture me on my own profession and then tell ME I'm arrogant.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I know you did as a lot of people did and do , but according to the USA court they didn't feel he was .

Didn't feel he was or not enough evidence at the time to say he was?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Why is it professional arrogance? What's arrogant is that you think you can lecture me on my own profession and then tell ME I'm arrogant.

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to mean something quite frequently.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

As a kid, probably not. Infact it probably wouldn't even enter my head at that age.

True. But then as a kid of the age of 7 I can't imagine I'd have any understanding of any of it. Even money.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to quite frequently.

Whereas you have nothing to back up your own assertions.

You get very prickly whenever I say anything about my profession.

I don't believe I'm right because of my profession. I believe I'm right because I've thought it through. If you don't want to be reminded what I do for a living stop trying to make your own case by talking me through evidence and witness statements.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You use your profession to assert that "you know best" and expect that it be taken as "given". That is arrogance. I haven't lectured you on anything; I've offered an opinion that contradicts your own, you have tried to denounce that opinion as less valid than yours based on your supposed qualifications and expect people to simply accept that. One day you might have to accept that on an internet forum, no one cares if you're a lawyer or a bus driver, and the only thing that matters is your argument in and of itself. "And I am a lawyer so!" means absolutely nothing here, but you bring it up and expect it to mean something quite frequently.

How is it different to parents bringing their kids into the discussion as a statement on how much more valid their opinion was on the James Bulger thread?

It's ok for one and not the other?

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

True. But then as a kid of the age of 7 I can't imagine I'd have any understanding of any of it. Even money.

But as a grown up you would look back and think, no..
.that wasn't right, then perhaps you would start talking to protect other kids from this form of abuse.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

But as a grown up you would look back and think, no..
.that wasn't right, then perhaps you would start talking to protect other kids from this form of abuse.

Yes true. I'm just saying as a child I wouldn't understand the magnitude of a 20 million dollar check either. In terms of making a choice to make money rather than tell anyone.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Whereas you have nothing to back up your own assertions.

You get very prickly whenever I say anything about my profession.

Because you use it as a battering ram when it's entirely irrelevant; usually when you're feeling like your knowledge is being in some way "challenged" which you find insulting.

I don't believe I'm right because of my profession. I believe I'm right because I've thought it through.

Good! Then talk about your reasoning in thinking it through and not your profession?

If you don't want to be reminded what I do for a living stop trying to make your own case by talking me through evidence and witness statements.

Why would I do that when your profession is irrelevant?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

How is it different to parents bringing their kids into the discussion as a statement on how much more valid their opinion was on the James Bulger thread?

It's ok for one and not the other?

Don't you lecture ME on hypocrisy young man . I have a BSc.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes true. I'm just saying as a child I wouldn't understand the magnitude of a 20 million dollar check either. In terms of making a choice to make money rather than tell anyone.

That's probably when the parents stepped in.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

That's probably when the parents stepped in.

Well exactly. Case closed.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

My brothers response to me saying Gav won't watch it incase it turns him off the music........

Ah I think people have been compartmentalising that for a long time
"Great music, probably a paedo"

Yup, that's my view too.
I think he was emotionally and psychologically immature, arrested development, no childhood etc
Even those alleged sex acts remind of kids experimenting behind a bike shed: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well exactly. Case closed.

Maybe he had 100 of orphans stay over. I know from the many many girls he had stay that none have filed complaints...very telling that it's only males that have...

Anyway this photo of him and robsons family says it all...look how the dad's almost frozen out as Michael hugs everyone else in close as though that's the pic.


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...cFdcO37kPNBvWM

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

Yup, that's my view too.
I think he was emotionally and psychologically immature, arrested development, no childhood etc
Even those alleged sex acts remind of kids experimenting behind a bike shed: I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo

Makes it worse imo, knowing what it feels like emotionally all through your life yourself, to then inflict that on others..

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Makes it worse imo, knowing what it feels like emotionally all through your life yourself, to then inflict that on others..

Yeah definitely

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah most likely and I'm sure he had an horrendous time as a child himself, it doesn't excuse him though imo

No, it doesn't, but provides some context as to why. If the allegations are true, of course.
But since his estate is very rich we can't overlook financial gain as motivation either.