Did you ever believe the allegations against MJ?
| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
tackyblueeyeshadow |
|||
|
Posts: 7481 (06/27/2009 7:26 PM) |
I wasn't sure what to believe until the family settled for a bundle of money. Because I'm sorry, if you molested one of my children no amount of money
would make it okay. I wouldn't be satisfied until your ass was in jail for the rest of your life.
|
||
theNavigator |
|||
|
Posts: 455 (06/27/2009 10:29 PM) |
Undecided. Not sure to be honest, it may be truth, but it may not be. It's hard for me to believe it 100% but then again u never know with a certain mental
state.. :/
|
||
babydtc23 |
|||
|
Posts: 7310 (06/28/2009 2:41 PM) |
Lideem wrote: How does it not prove anything? It certainly sits on the side of proving he was innocent rather than guilty. Trying to rationalize these parents decisions to allow their children to stay with a supposed child molestor by creating reasons that are quite far fetched and irrational only further disproves your point. |
||
RoxyGrl01 |
|||
|
Posts: 17486 (06/28/2009 2:52 PM) |
No, I never believed them.
|
||
babydtc23 |
|||
|
Posts: 7311 (06/28/2009 3:07 PM) |
Lideem wrote: Your rationale actually goes against the point you are trying to prove though. If they were that big of what you refer them as "idiots", they could have easily just as been idiots with a motive, which was surely what the first case proves. I find it rather telling that 90% of those who think he was guilty didn't really explain why they felt that way or if they did, the reason they gave clearly showed they didn't know much about the case at all other than what the media said at the time. Not to mention many of the reasons can be refuted by an even better reason that would explain his innocence. Many things posted that actually supports him being innocent has been posted in support of those who don't think he was guilty, and yet nothing has been posted or explained that can rationally prove or support his guilt, other than him being weird and not thinking there was anything wrong with kids staying in his bed or room, where he says he never stayed while they were there anyways. I just find it quite telling. |
||
PosterGirl2006 |
|||
|
Posts: 8809 (06/28/2009 3:15 PM) |
babydtc23 wrote: Even though I'm a fan, I was always open to hearing arguments for both Michael's innocence and guilt. My faith in his innocence is not blind. I've just NEVER been given a good argument for him being guilty. Odd behavior does not equal pedophile. |
||
Ease Your Mind |
|||
|
Posts: 2022 (06/28/2009 3:19 PM) |
Sweetie1384 wrote:Well, obviously, the father couldn't care less. He set OUT to hurt him and ruin his career. I'm sure he's been celebrating the past few days.
Edited By: Ease Your Mind
06/28/2009 3:27 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
Oh reallly |
|||
|
Posts: 2292 (06/28/2009 3:20 PM) |
Its just like the cases where a man's wife ends up dead and a few years later his second and third wifes end up dying supposedly accidentally its highly unlikely someone would have more than one wife die in an accident. I'd be very suspicious as I am with Michael and his fondness for children. I think there are defiantly some truths in the accusations that were made. Only Michael knows the answer and the children he had contact with. |
||
CherryGoddess |
|||
|
Posts: 145 (06/28/2009 3:20 PM) |
Nope.
|
||
BeaUtiFuLiMperFektiOn |
|||
|
Posts: 5426 (06/28/2009 3:22 PM) |
Oh reallly wrote:That's more than likely what they built that second case on. Hoping that people would view the situation the way you do. |
||
Tyler16 Tyler 16 |
|||
|
Posts: 3108 (06/28/2009 3:31 PM) |
PosterGirl2006 wrote:Well said, PosterGirl.
|
||
SusieMC |
|||
|
Posts: 517 (06/28/2009 3:34 PM) |
BeaUtiFuLiMperFektiOn wrote:Not only that....but Drew Peterson has no explanation for anything and continues to thumb his nose at the world as if he got away with something. As has been said in this thread before....for every bit of evidence there is to prove Michael did it, there is an even better piece of evidence to prove he didn't. Unfortunately for Drew, there's not a bit of evidence anywhere to prove he didn't kill his wives other than what HE says. The saddest part about all of it was that Sneddon destroyed any hope MJ had of defending himself because he pushed the conspiracy charge. So regardless of someone saying "I was in the room too and saw nothing." they were instantly thought to be lying because they were in on it and protecting him. |
||
BackToReality |
|||
|
Posts: 18028 (06/28/2009 3:39 PM) |
Not at all.
|
||
ivymiller |
|||
|
Posts: 4302 (06/28/2009 3:45 PM) |
no, i dont. i think everyone can agree some inappropriate things happened, like the sleepovers in the same bed but as for anything sexual? no.
the problem or the root cause of his behaviour/ and childlike mentality was his fucked up childhood i think but i dont believe he did sexually abuse anyone.. and i think they screwed him over because he was an easy target and had a lot of money. |
||
Oh reallly |
|||
|
Posts: 2294 (06/28/2009 3:49 PM) |
BeaUtiFuLiMperFektiOn wrote: Well of course and its a damn good reason to build a case...Not to say it makes a person guilty or not but its a good reason to build a case. |
||
Sweetie1384 |
|||
|
Posts: 15525 (06/28/2009 4:12 PM) |
Ease Your Mind wrote: Well if they did lie to just get money and ruin Jackson's name and life, they will surely rot in hell when its their time to go, I do believe in that. And those others who said the same about Michael, if it turns out they were all lying, don't worry, hell is where they will be staying for eternity. After these allegations came out, Michael changed, and I pray to god, that this was not the reason he became depressed and got on all those pills.. but likely it is. These allegations will RUIN any man or woman, and sadly I believe this is what started Michael's downfall
But I still firmly believe he is innocent until someone can give me hard ass evidence that he really did touch a little boy, I will keep thinking he was a innocent man and hopefully he is finally resting in peace!
Edited By: Sweetie1384
06/28/2009 4:14 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
babydtc23 |
|||
|
Posts: 7312 (06/28/2009 4:23 PM) |
What says so much to me is that this devestated him so much that it lead to the downfall of him that ultimately killed him.
He was so devestated because he loved children and their innocence so much to be accused of or be looked as anyone who would harm a child broke his spirit, especially since he was the complete opposite. |
||
giadoe |
|||
|
Posts: 3389 (06/28/2009 4:23 PM) |
no... I always think that he's a asexual and he finds a special bonding with children in general because he never lived a proper childhood and children
have no ulterior motive in friending him (although the parents do). Also, I think he's surrounded by leeches and shady people so I think he finds safe
harbor in his relationship with children and animals (hence his special relationship with the chimpanzee).
|
||
insomniachollie |
|||
|
Posts: 40364 (06/28/2009 4:51 PM) Best Fan Fic Writer '08 |
Well of course and its a damn good reason to build a case...Not to say it makes a person guilty or not but its a good reason to build a case. No it's not. It was one guy's word against another's, totally unproven and failed to stand up in evidence when Sneddon tried to bring a criminal case. That is not a good reason to build a new case, unless we're now taking the view that a mere accusation is evidence enough to presume a man guilty and therefore just cause to believe all other accusations. Which would totally trash the notion of innocent until proven guilty and the foundation of our justice systems. A man could well be unlucky enough to have two wives die in accidents. But you can't compare that to opportunists picking on easy targets like Michael - accidents pick their victims at random, opportunistic greedy SOBs pick them for a reason. It's not so unlikely that an easy target will attract more than one opportunist - they're an easy target to begin with, but if the first accuser sounded plausible enough to leave suspicion hanging over the victim's head that just makes it all the easier for any more who come along. Because the seed of doubt's already been planted. This was Michael's problem - he was so strange, it was never hard to believe even the weirder shit that got said about him. And then people started taking that weirdness as proof of his guilt. Now, if the second allegation had been a strong one, that might have lent some credence to the first in hindsight. But the Chandler allegation was far too patchy to have ever really backed up the Arvizos, and the Arvizos were so inconsistent and just generally very dubious characters that they don't lend Jordy Chandler any extra credibility either. The saddest part about all of it was that Sneddon destroyed any hope MJ had of defending himself because he pushed the conspiracy charge. So regardless of someone saying "I was in the room too and saw nothing." they were instantly thought to be lying because they were in on it and protecting him. yeah, I never realised how fucked up that was until I started reading up - Sneddon found out a PI for the defence team had got hold of a tape with the Arvizo family protesting Jackson's innocence and quickly worked out that inconsistency would be the line the defence took, so before he got to the grand jury he was able to throw in this conspiracy charge to undermine them (despite it never being in the initial charges he brought). And since the defence lawyers weren't before the grand jury the way they would have been at a preliminary hearing... it was fucked up. A lot of the specific timings of the allegations and charges conveniently chopped and changed as Sneddon got defence evidence that undermined them - when you read the details you can't help wondering whether he was concerned with facts or just nailing Michael any way he could. Though the conspiracy charge in particular never made sense. Like they claimed Michael and his team were planning to 'trap' them in Brazil... but he'd bought them return tickets. They claimed he had trapped them in Neverland... but CPS/the police visited in that time and they said nothing, and the mother went out and saw an attorney. What kind of kidnapper lets you out to go talk to a lawyer? But then, I never believed the second lot, they were always far too inconsistent. What shocked me though when reading up on shit was the Chandler case. I'd always been far iffier on that one, far more doubtful that Michael was innocent, but the more I read up on it the dodgier it starts looking. I knew Jordy first made the allegation under the influence of a drug, but I had no idea it was his 'I will take Michael down' dad that gave it to him and that it was a drug known to make people very susceptible to suggestion. That and apparently he was in the dentist chair when it happened and the use of this drug in dentistry is abnormal? And I always thought that he'd correctly described Michael's genitals, but it was ruled inconclusive - he couldn't be specific enough to convince them. Not that this all totally wipes out all doubts I had about Michael, I still find a lot of shit worrying, but it's certainly been enough to sway me a lot more in Michael's favour than I originally was. |
||
luvjoeyafjr |
|||
|
Posts: 10713 (06/28/2009 5:36 PM) |
yes.
|
||

