[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 Toy Soldier

Joey I keep repeating that the legal verdict means little to nothing to me in forming my opinion in this case. I am skeptical of the legal system, I am skeptical of authority in general in all situations. I try to take an open and more philosophical view of topics and not be constrained by the rigid constructs of "the letter of law" when it's just a discussion; though I appreciate why it exists in practical terms.

I understand that you work in law and so you likely have a greater respect for the line of law and authority than I do but you need to accept that "in terms of the law you are wrong" simply means very little to me - with no judgement intended - but pointing out that there's no need to clarify the technicalities repeatedly.

Well since you admit the law means little to nothing to you and you can simply dismiss all that case while believing 2 others, who must have lied then or now.
That's your affair.

I cannot, and even think the trial shouldn't be dismissed at all.

Anyone accused of anything has the right to be heard too.
These have now made their turnaround after MJs death.
So the only way MJ can answer back, is what he defended himself with in thst trial.

That's not just law, its also fair play.

[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.

[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

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

Yeah it did

Jermaine said it

did he lie though?

they were white trash, Jade and her mother
here we'd say chav but in this case it's the same thing

[Twosugars]

tbf, Peter Pan syndrome would explain a lot without resorting to him being a paedo

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

tbf, Peter Pan syndrome would explain a lot without resorting to him being a paedo

Also would him being a dirty,filthy pervert

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

did he lie though?

they were white trash, Jade and her mother
here we'd say chav but in this case it's the same thing

You disgust me, you really do

[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.

[Twosugars]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

You disgust me, you really do

when I consider your views expressed across the forum over the period I've been reading, that's a compliment

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

when I consider your views expressed across the forum over the period I've been reading, that's a compliment

Im glad you saw it as a compliment

[user104658]

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

Well this is a flat out lie because I watched and commented on at least two of the videos you've posted, and I believed them to be full of "red herrings". Character slurs against the accusers and a propaganda machine in full spin. There was nothing in them that invalidated the claims... Just more attempts to discredit by saying things like "it can't be true because they stayed friends", "their careers were in trouble", "Wades Co workers say he was an arsehole", "they want money" ... none of which means anything at all. I assume any other videos you've posted follow a similar pattern.

But if it serves your argument to pretend that they were enlightening commentaries that were selectively ignored, then I can see why that's what you'd rather do.

[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

[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.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Twosugars

did he lie though?

they were white trash, Jade and her mother
here we'd say chav but in this case it's the same thing

I don't think they would stoop as low as defending a paedophille.

[Beso]

Does anyone know if it's true they found pictures of naked boys at neverland?

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Does anyone know if it's true they found pictures of naked boys at neverland?

Ive heard of this but how true i dont know, but they found porn with MJ and kids fingerprints on

[Beso]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Ive heard of this but how true i dont know, but they found porn with MJ and kids fingerprints on

I'm sure they found pictures of naked boys but it wasn't an offence to have them in that state.

[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.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I'm sure they found pictures of naked boys but it wasn't an offence to have them in that state.

It rings a bell

What I would like to know from the MJ fans is .....Why did MJ settle out of court to shut up Jordy's family ? An innocent man would never have done that

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Because the last one posted was half an hour long

But you managed to watch a 4 hour one over 2 nights,surely if you were unbiased you would watch half an hour

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Ive heard of this but how true i dont know, but they found porn with MJ and kids fingerprints on

It's not true ,watch the vids

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It's not true ,watch the vids

Michael Jackson’s California home contained a considerable stash of pornography as well as sexual imagery featuring children, S&M and animal torture, according to purported police reports from the 2003 investigation of the superstar for child molestation.

Jackson’s Neverland Ranch near Santa Barbara was raided in November 2003, shortly before the Thriller singer was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of providing an intoxicant to a minor under the age of 14.

Read more

Read more Memoir reveals Michael Jackson enjoyed laughing at Prince messing up
The report from the raid was never made public. But now Radar Online has obtained what appear to be the case documents. Among the items found at Jackson's home were images of children bleeding or in pain, and of children’s faces superimposed onto adult bodies, the gossip site reported.

Many of the images included in the documents could be described as erotic or provocative art photography, including works from a book entitled The Fourth Sex, by artists such as the Chapman Brothers and Tracey Emin. Other books found by police contained images of children nude or in swimwear. There were also multiple porn magazines and videos in the star’s bedroom and bathroom, including recent issues of Hustler’s Barely Legal and Girls of Penthouse.

Ron Zonen, formerly of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office, who worked on the Jackson prosecution, told Radar that many of the materials were used to “desensitise” the children whom the star was allegedly grooming for abuse. “We identified five different boys, who all made allegations of sexual abuse,” Mr Zonen said. “There’s not much question in my mind that Michael was guilty of child molestation.”


Copied from the Independent

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

It rings a bell

What I would like to know from the MJ fans is .....Why did MJ settle out of court to shut up Jordy's family ? An innocent man would never have done that

HE didn't ,he wanted it to go through the courts ,if you watch the vids it was something to do with insurers or something like that they advised him to pay out,dont believe all those rag tops Chuff ,same as the photos there were none,its all hearsay from rag tops.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Michael Jackson’s California home contained a considerable stash of pornography as well as sexual imagery featuring children, S&M and animal torture, according to purported police reports from the 2003 investigation of the superstar for child molestation.

Jackson’s Neverland Ranch near Santa Barbara was raided in November 2003, shortly before the Thriller singer was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of providing an intoxicant to a minor under the age of 14.

Read more

Read more Memoir reveals Michael Jackson enjoyed laughing at Prince messing up
The report from the raid was never made public. But now Radar Online has obtained what appear to be the case documents. Among the items found at Jackson's home were images of children bleeding or in pain, and of children’s faces superimposed onto adult bodies, the gossip site reported.

Many of the images included in the documents could be described as erotic or provocative art photography, including works from a book entitled The Fourth Sex, by artists such as the Chapman Brothers and Tracey Emin. Other books found by police contained images of children nude or in swimwear. There were also multiple porn magazines and videos in the star’s bedroom and bathroom, including recent issues of Hustler’s Barely Legal and Girls of Penthouse.

Ron Zonen, formerly of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office, who worked on the Jackson prosecution, told Radar that many of the materials were used to “desensitise” the children whom the star was allegedly grooming for abuse. “We identified five different boys, who all made allegations of sexual abuse,” Mr Zonen said. “There’s not much question in my mind that Michael was guilty of child molestation.”


Copied from the Independent

I've seen it already Chuff,there were no photos.C'mon IF there was photos they would have been used as evidence,lol