by slimboyfat 216 Replies latest jw friends
But you have to admit Brinjen, the way the first situation was handled is highly suspicious
that left an impression of guilt to the public and hey 20 million is a fair chunk of change even
for a super star just to give out for something you did nothing for.
How much would the lawyers have cost? How long would the thing have dragged on for? What if you had secrets you didn't want revealed? (not talking anything criminal here)
You could sit around all day and come up with endless reasons why... none of them prove anything. If you have access to the best lawyers and money is no object you could (by that logic) manipulate the system to prove your innocence anyway... didn't a few people on here say 'innocent verdict proves nothing?'
didn't a few people on here say 'innocent verdict proves nothing?
For most people to protect your name and standing where you live is a up most importance,
you would think someone who is in the public eye would naturally want to protect a public image, if there was nothing to keep
secret ? This doesn't make any sense at all, even more so when he had all the resources available to protect himself and his family name.
My point is, once an allegation like that has been made, it doesn't matter what you do or what any court finds there are always going to be those who will think of you as guilty.
What about all the testimonies from those with no reason to lie (like Macaulay Culkin) who testified that Michael never touched him? http://www.examiner.com/x-14650-Entertainment-Examiner~y2009m6d26-Macaulay-Culkin-quiet-on-Michael-Jackson-death
Ahhhhh....you can't prove a negative.....
As I have said, my impression is that Michael Jackson, as a 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 year old man, truly enjoyed the company of children. Somehow, the people around him accepted that premise because he was a celebrity - otherwise, one certainly would have been suspicious of an ordinary 40-year old man who wanted to sleep with little boys. Given that, he could have enjoyed the company of many boys whom he did not necessarily feel compelled to molest. It would seem that in addition to everything else, MJ probably had a low sex-drive, such that he probably did spend a lot of time in benign activities with children which were probably very satisfying to him. But, I have no doubt that those times veered into sexual "touching" on occasion. Jesus juice? Feeding children wine? I do not, by any stretch of the imagination, think that MJ was "railroaded" into these compromising situations. He was a predator - a gentle one, perhaps - but an adult who preyed upon children regardless of how "childlike" he appeared. He was 40+ years old when he was on trial, fer chrissakes.
Just because one celebrity kid makes some kind of friendship with MJ who didn't experience anything bad doesn't mean nothing at all.
And would it make sense to award people who tried to cheat and under handily steal money away form him, we're taking millions here not a small amount.
Anybody to do such a thing would really have to off his rocker. Remember he paid out the money to stop further legal precedings and to put gag over the
accusers.
Honestley,
Who here would drop off they're ten year old son at Michael Jacksons house for the weekend? Anyone? I thought so.
Let's see: Jackson worst crime was being naive and trusting and being taken advantage of by greedy parents.
Your words, not mine. I said nothing about crime of any degree.
Got it. Really. The crime part is not mine - it is legal authorities. He was a suspected child molester. Innocent you think?
No one is saying he's innocent beyond any doubt, just that there is nothing that proves his guilt beyond any doubt. It is a fact that he was found innocent in 2005... suppose he had fought the original allegations and been found innocent then... would everyone here believe it then? From what I've seen, the answer would be "no".
No one here can say for certain if he molested any child or not, that's the whole point.
