[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

And not one of you who believes he is a child molester has commented on any of the videos some of us posted giving details ,interviews etc about his innocence ,that in itself tell me what I need to know,people are afraid they might hear or see something that they would have to admit is dodgy and they really don't want to explain that. Joey said they would get ignored, and he was right

Told you Kazanne.

It makes me wonder what we ever need courts or the law for..
When condemnation and judgement can just come from thinking, rather than substantiated hard evidence.

Then even when the result is, someone gets tried, then fully acquitted.
It's not valid to accept that.
Nor to even listen to the other side, or read it if the other person is dead.

Thank all powers that be though that the law does exist.
It would be a sad society indeed probably otherwise to have people judged on crimes,on likes or dislikes.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Told you Kazanne.

It makes me wonder what we ever need courts or the law for..
When condemnation and judgement can just come from thinking, rather than substantiated hard evidence.

Then even when the result is, someone gets tried, then fully acquitted.
It's not valid to accept that.
Nor to even listen to the other side, or read it if the other person is dead.

Thank all powers that be though that the law does exist.
It would be a sad society indeed probably otherwise to have people judged on crimes,on likes or dislikes.

But Joey...you are condemning and judging these two men. It’s no different from condemning Michael Jackson..there is no proof to say they were abused but surely, surely the set up, the sleep overs speak volumes to tell you what was going on.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

But Joey...you are condemning and judging these two men. It’s no different from condemning Michael Jackson..there is no proof to say they were abused but surely, surely the set up, the sleep overs speak volumes to tell you what was going on.

I'm talking about crimes.

These 2 said no crimes, had ever been committed.
Now they are.

So already 2 liars in my view.
After however listening to them and watching them.

So giving them their hearing.
The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

I'm not judging them, I don't believe them.
There was swearing under oath in court that no crimes were committed by MJ.

You are discounting that.
I'm giving an opinion, not judging them at all.
They haven't 'YET' been investigated or tried for any crimes.

I am accepting the law, and what the law carried out, investigation, multiple charges and trial, which found MJ not guilty of all.

Now you can discount that and give MJ a criminal record, the law didn't if you wish.
However I won't.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I'm talking about crimes.

These 2 said no crimes, had ever been committed.
Now they are.

So already 2 liars in my view.
After however listening to them and watching them.

So giving them their hearing.
The whole thing sounds fishy to me.

I'm not judging them, I don't believe them.
There was swearing under oath in court that no crimes were committed by MJ.

You are discounting that.
I'm giving an opinion, not judging them at all.
They haven't 'YET' been investigated or tried for any crimes.

I am accepting the law, and what the law carried out, investigation, multiple charges and trial, which found MJ not guilty of all.

Now you can discount that and give MJ a criminal record, the law didn't if you wish.
However I won't.

FIVE people Joey. Five, not two. There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents but no physical stuff. It's fine if you disbelieve all five but you need to stop saying that I believe "these two" because - like yours - my opinion isn't based solely on this documentary and to keep emphasising two is just misleading.

As for the rest of it, I get it. You're approaching this from a 100% "letter of the law" standpoint and that's fine, but it's also not the be all and end all of this (or any) debate for everyone.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

FIVE people Joey. Five, not two. There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents but no physical stuff. It's fine if you disbelieve all five but you need to stop saying that I believe "these two" because - like yours - my opinion isn't based solely on this documentary and to keep emphasising two is just misleading.

As for the rest of it, I get it. You're approaching this from a 100% "letter of the law" standpoint and that's fine, but it's also not the be all and end all of this (or any) debate for everyone.

This seems to have been forgotten

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

This seems to have been forgotten

And 350 came out of the woodwork all of them dismissed ,this seems to be have forgotten too

[Cherie]

given all the children who passed through Neverland 7 seems tame

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

FIVE people Joey. Five, not two. There were two in this documentary; the total number of accusers has been 5 and a couple more who say there were minor inappropriate incidents but no physical stuff. It's fine if you disbelieve all five but you need to stop saying that I believe "these two" because - like yours - my opinion isn't based solely on this documentary and to keep emphasising two is just misleading.

As for the rest of it, I get it. You're approaching this from a 100% "letter of the law" standpoint and that's fine, but it's also not the be all and end all of this (or any) debate for everyone.

Minor inappropriate incidents but no, you say no, physical stuff.

What on earth is that then and where is the crime there.
Plus where's the proof other than words.

I'll take the letter of the law, yes any day on this one.
It seems far more reliable than any of these claims now.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Minor inappropriate incidents but no, you say no, physical stuff.



What on earth is that then and where is the crime there.

Plus where's the proof other than words.



I'll take the letter of the law, yes any day on this one.

It seems far more reliable than any of these claims now.

"What on earth" includes verbal sexual comments and viewing pornography together.

Regardless; there are Five who have mentioned physical incidents, I was clear that there were a "couple more" who said inappropriate by not physical. If you include those the number I believe is 7 or 8 individuals.

And no there's no proof other than words, but that is true of the vast majority of sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, which is why there is a very low conviction rate and it is a well known fact that many guilty people are not convicted of sexual crimes. Estimates less than a 1% conviction rate. That's another figure you've repeatedly ignored in the "reliable letter of the law" debate.

It is KNOWN that its hard to secure a guilty verdict in sex crimes. Its an undeniable fact.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"What on earth" includes verbal sexual comments and viewing pornography together.

Regardless; there are Five who have mentioned physical incidents, I was clear that there were a "couple more" who said inappropriate by not physical. If you include those the number I believe is 7 or 8 individuals.

And no there's no proof other than words, but that is true of the vast majority of sexual assault and sexual abuse cases, which is why there is a very low conviction rate and it is a well known fact that many guilty people are not convicted of sexual crimes. Estimates less than a 1% conviction rate. That's another figure you've repeatedly ignored in the "reliable letter of the law" debate.

It is KNOWN that its hard to secure a guilty verdict in sex crimes. Its an undeniable fact.

Keep going TS.
You've gone from these 2 to 5 then to 7 or 8.
You may yet get to the near 350 allegations made years ago that were thoroughly investigated by police and other authorities, mentioned in the video Kazanne posted.
Which were thrown out.

I accept the court verdict.
I am no strong fan of Michael Jackson.
I believe Jacksons account.
I don't believe these 2.

I won't likely believe any unless hard evidence is produced now.

I'm not out to brand someone already declared not guilty as now guilty. In the absence of hard, substantiated evidence.
Certainly not just on the word of those making these claims now, seeming to have 'other' agendas, than truth.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

But Joey...you are condemning and judging these two men. It’s no different from condemning Michael Jackson..there is no proof to say they were abused but surely, surely the set up, the sleep overs speak volumes to tell you what was going on.

This is what Ive seen on all social media, fans claiming they are in it for money and calling them liars with no proof whatsoever ,there is a lot more proof of MJ guilt ( he admitted sleeping with small boys ) than there is of Wade and Jimmy lying