tahts it i can't take it
YOUR A FUCKING MORON!
5 year olds?
your brain is absolutely rotted out dumbass
the boy who is accusing him is 14 U DUMBASS not 5!
u make totally no sense
cause you no nothing about the case
so please for the sake of everyone
SHUT THE FUCK UP you Neurotic jackass

wtf there are ranks in pedophiles now
shut the hell up you asshole, why don't you get a sensible education and LEARN something

sorry about the rant^^^^^ hehe
in case you don't know me
i am THE Radical Man 2045
[This message was edited Fri Jul 9 23:33:23 2004 by Luv4oneanotha]

Luv4oneanotha said:

I had his age wrong, so my argument compeltely falls to pieces?

MrSquiggle said:

Basically
cause it says you don't know Shizzle
My nizzle


Holocaust avenue,2009

Luv4oneanotha said:

What about my question: Has there ever been anyone in history who sleeps every night in the same bed as unrelated sick children without doing something sexual?

MrSquiggle said:

Give me just one article were MJ says he sleeps with them in one bed. There is not one article. When he says he gives them his bed media usually says they are sleeping together. Geez, if you wanna discuss this make your homework.

Give the trial a chance and hear both sides and stop your hatred. But I guess it bothers you that Yoko can't afford the catalog.

BlueNote

blue note said it best
do your homework and i don't need to be scholin your azz
geez if you thought the kid was 5 theres probably awhole lot of stuff you don't know
so either do your homework
or better yet
SHUT UP!
cause your acting foolish now

Luv4oneanotha said:

I say again: You MJ fams are the most dedicated blind sheep in the universe. So far, you have said absolutely nothing to defend your argument other than to insult me. You're in denial, big time.

It is a failure of the legal system that Michael Jackson is still a free man. And I do not believe for a second that you would be supporting a non-entertaining man in his same circumstances.

and you have said nothing substanial to corroborate your allegations so...

BlueNote said:

Bashir: Did you ever sleep in the bed with them?

Jackson: No. But I have slept in a bed with many children, I slept in a bed with all of them when Macauley Culkin was little. Kieran Culkin would sleep on this side, Macauley Culkin was on this side, his sisters in there.



What?

Read the quote that you posted verrrrry carefully hehe

Luv4oneanotha said:

Neither have you.

MrSquiggle said:

I don't have to nor i want to , to convince one person,
I've already ranted about this case for 3 monthes why don't you set the archives fro one year
and search for the mj related threads
which should anywhere from october 03 to the end of june 04

I've Explained this case meticulously to a T
at this point i don't give a shyt anymore
last post on the thread...

-the Radical Man...

Luv4oneanotha said:

This thread brought to you by

"I'm Not Going To Bother Explaining To An Idiot Like You":
Defending Stupid Arguments Without Defending Them At All Since 1895.

MrSquiggle said:

man I think it's you who is the blind sheep. You know there's NO evidence NO proof at all.

Don't give me that " He sleeps with them, means he fucks them " crap. Stupidest thing I've ever heard.

He is fucking innocent. And if you can't see it after the everyday changing dates of "so-called" molestation, you are damn silly.

This thread is going no where.....

Emancipation88 said:

that's what happens with most MJ threads right? haters bash'em all the time with nonsense responses

LightOfArt said:

You know what? You're right.

MrSquiggle said:

huh?

MrSquiggle said:[quote]

BlueNote said:

Hold on, you talked about Gavin & Co. Not about his family friends. Thats a big difference. Even though if it happened with Gavin, it is not illegal.

You seem to be someone who doesn't want to accept any facts. There is no evidence at all that anything happend. Not in '93 or '03. And you will see how easy it is for Meserau to slam Sneddon out of this case. This man is such a dumb hillbilly racist. He was and is the bad guy in this case.

Just wait till July 27th. Bail will be reduced, Sneddon will lose the case and the indicment will be partially been thrown out. There is no way this goes to trial after this weeks of motions and infos.

BlueNote
[This message was edited Sat Jul 10 5:26:04 2004 by BlueNote]

BlueNote said:

Now HERE'S a proper debate!

Okay, it's not illegal to sleep in the same bed as children. But a reasonable person draws certain conclusions. And what about the birthmark thing?

I also think it's don't believe that racism is a factor in this. You really think he wouldn't have the same accusations if he was an anglo saxon man in the same circumstances?

MrSquiggle said:

Uhm, R.Kelly is a repeated offender, it's not like he was unaware of their age every time. Secondly, it's not hundreds of innocent children, it's 3 complaints: one was dismissed, another one was investigated over two years but charges were never filed and a third one is going to trial now (unless it gets thrown out one of these days). In each case the boys were at least 12yrs old.

Also, above you are talking about having sex in bed, but if you paid any attention, the charges do not involve any form of sex (which would've been a much more serious offence) but acts of "lewd and lascivious acts" where the law stipulates that any action, if it has a sexual intention, qualifies. I'm not sure what the actual charges will b, but it looks like it may very well be having Playboy magazine laying around, having conversations about sexuality or giving hugs.

Why is it that people like Charlie Chaplin, R Kelly, Elvis or Woody Allen don't get any criticism, but because people don't like MJ they automatically assume he molested "hundreds of innocent, sick 5-year-old boys". Mayb you should really reconsider your judgement after making such a moronic statement.

SpcMs said:

3 complaints, but I'll betcha anything it's happened heaps more times.



Acts of sexual intention rather than sex itself. That's ridiculous.



I love MJ - I own all his albums and have been a fan literally as far back as I can remember. The "Remember The Time" video launch is actually my first memory. While perhaps a lot of his critics "dont like" him, none of his critics are basing the arguments on it - they're basing it on his amusement park house, textbook paedophile features, the birthmark thing, etc. Reasonable people draw reasonable conclusions.

Can anyone explain the birthmark thing, by the way?

Oh and what did Elvis and Chaplin do?

MrSquiggle said:

Well, i agree it's both despicable in relation to children, but there is a difference between actually having sex with and showing a Playboy magazine to a 13yr old, be it a boy or a girl.


None are basing the arguments on it? Gimme a break... The textbook paedophile features? Don't think so... not many peodophiles are transgender, stuck in adulthood and mentally unstable superstars, but mayb you can point to a reference that says the contrary.


For the birthmark claims: if they were true, MJ would've basically been arrested or charged on the spot. So please provide a credible source that they matched the boy's description (and no, the National Enquirer does not count).

SpcMs said:

Is this what they're saying MJ did - show a Playboy to a minor?



If some of them are, then I'm not anyway.



"Superstars" is irrelevant. A lot of paedophiles are "mentally unstable" given the traumatic childhood and so forth. And isn't being "stuck in adulthood" one of the trademark features of paedophilia? They compensate for their lack of childhood.



I've researched it and nothing seems to be turning up. None of the archives seem to go back far enough to make mention of it. Still, I remember reading in the book Michael Jackson Unauthorised that naked photos were taken and that he did indeed have the birthmark. This was also mentioned in the Law & Order SVU episode. Both of these sources probably would've done their research, so I can make an educated guess that the mark matched the description.

Evidence and proof aside, I think we all really know what's going on here.

Oh and in response to your signature, my IQ is 145.
[This message was edited Sat Jul 10 18:12:29 2004 by MrSquiggle]

No not really, Prosecution found massive amounts of porn in Michaels bedroom, Good news is that it was straight porn, not child porn, or homosexually,
you would think that the prosecution is going to say that he used the porn to lure the boys
but they're not, they're just going to use the porn to discredit his credibility...
The truth is there is no Evidence against jackson, the whole case is based on Conspiracy Theory
The Judge is getting Restless and he might just throw the case out in august,
because Prosecution has made extremely bad moves from the start
and the Sneddon Vandetta is still an Issue


thats actually extremely untrue, Majority of pedophiles come from regular homes, they just have a hormone and neurological imbalnce that makes them lust after children, this can be reversed through massive therapy,
Forget what you've heard there is no Template for a Pedophile, They come in all shapes and sizes
But Child psychologist have Examined Jackson, and claim he's the furthest from a Pedophile on 1 accounts
1. He actually cares about children, pedophiles only see children as sex objects and degrade them
and lust after them




Michael Jackson Doesn't have a birthmark on his penis, this is a lie!
in 1993 Jordy Chandler was asked to describe Jacksons penis and Claimed there was a birthmark,
When Police Searched jacksons body all they found where depigmented skin cells from his skin disease
Vitiligo,Thus the Child didn't accurately Describe the penis,
If law inforceman Found a Said Birthmark, The 20 million dollar settlement that jackson obtained afterwards wouldn't matter
because the birthmark alone would be substanial evidence to go through trial,
The Truth is during the 1993 investigation the police turned up with no evidence whatsoever
which is highly unlikely because a Pedophile always has evidence of his disease lying around the premises
Example R. Kelly
When his homes where search it was littered with Pornographic Photos of young girls
Police have search Jacksons home 2 times and have turned out nothing, Which is eerie...


in a court of law there is ONLY evidence and Proof,
You cannot base your assumptions on his meer apearence or the fact that he has a ranch which can attract children, its absolutely Irrelevent!.
unless you have Hardcore evidence, your case is pretty much shot
Unless your an extremely good prosecutor you might have a chance
But Jackson's Defense is piled up with so much Evidence and wittnesses against the prosecution
its going to be a trial bloodbath if it goes to court

I've researched this case and the 1993 case, if you have anymore suspicians, just state them
and i'll tell you whats going down

the mere fact the the childs father doesn't believe the allegations is extremely odd because in 1993
jordy's mother didn't believe the allegations
until jordy's father Evan chandler promised her 5 million in a taped coversation... which jacksons investigators have...
[This message was edited Sat Jul 10 22:26:15 2004 by Luv4oneanotha]

MrSquiggle said:

I guess, Luv and Spcms said it before. This birthmark thing is fake. It would have been his ticket.

Lets put the ifs and woulds aside, lets just deal with this situation, otherwise we would clearly end somewhere between Elvis and Priscilla and Hitler and his German shepherds.

It is true, we don't have prove if Sneddon is a racist. But we know, that Jackson is not the only one who gets this treatment. There are others too.

In the end, just let them do their work. If Sneddon has a personal issue against Jackson and they can prove it, you should accept it. And you should also see the fact, that he was the guy who was repsonsible for the mess in '93.

You should also look into the motion which was released on July 6. It has quotes from the grand jury, which draws a pretty good picture of how Sneddon acts. As some insiders said, Sneddon may just be incompetent or has a personal issue against Jackson.

BlueNote

Sneddon is Ruthless
i dunno how they got the grandjury to shell out an indictment
but being hostile is one of the factors

damn why can't we use pics for signatures

LightOfArt said:

Only a hardcore MJ fan would get that.