if this info was legit i would think it would be all over the press. i'm not syaying it isn't the real deal but as of now i find incredibly sketchy. as for the skepticism about his legal team switching...mark geragos was ALREADY involved in the peterson trial and the reason he stepped down from the mj case was because he could not offer the time to both trials, especially with them both being such high profile cases. if i was michael (or any other person up against a serious charge) i would not want an attorney who could offer me 100% of their attention. there's no need to look into why geragos dropped the case...it was made abundantly clear back when his exit was made.

SassyBritches said:

And if this info was all over the press, people would say it wasn't legit. Ya can't win.

VoicesCarry said:

i don't think that would be true if the press proved this evidence existed. as it stands, you can't compare documentation to rumour.

SassyBritches said:

And how would the press "prove" it enough to satisfy fans and/or doubters? Print the pictures on the front page? You'd still have fans going, "they found these pics online, they made it all up blah blah blah".

A LITTLE BOY'S BOOTY IS A HELLVA DRUG!-----MICHEAL JOSEPH JACKSON

FunkyBrotha said:

FUNKY DOLLAR BILL!! $$$ US DOLLAR BILL---FUNKADELIC

VoicesCarry said:

well, look, if its in the court documents and they provide simple court documentation...and no, i'm not saying print the actual documents...it would be pretty solid. while i don't doubt some fanatical folks would say the photos are faked, most people would have to deal with the evidence. eventually, anything in the case will come out for public knowledge. we'll just ahve to wait and see. i do think there is a double standard here, though, because those who have already made up their minds as to his guilt are really no better than those who have made up their minds to his innocence.

and for the record, our adversarial court system is designed with the principle of innocent until proven guilty and until he is proven otherwise, i will continue to adhere to that principle. i did it with oj, i did it kobe, i'm doing it with peterson. the media is not interested in presenting an unbiased setof facts, they are interested in presenting interesting and titilating news stories in order to get ratings so they can sell advertising time. i will not take my judicial cue from them. when they do their job and provide som efacts rather than sensationalism i will pay attention.

MJ IS ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT 100% GUILTY!!!

THERE ARE 3 OTHER BOYS TESTIFYING IN THE TRIAL.--DIDN'T YA KNOW?

A LITTLE BOY'S BOOTY IS A HELLA DRUG----MICHEAL JOSEPH JACKSON.




MY EX WORKED FOR USA TODAY BACK IN 1990 AND SHE TOLD ME ABOUT THESE THINGS BACK THEN. BUT THEY COULD NEVER PRINT IT FOR FEAR OF BEING SUED.

SassyBritches said:

There's only so many times his acolytes will be able to use the "it's only a scam artist" line before it starts to wear thin. If he's acquitted, he'll probably be charged again sometime within the next 10 years and we'll rinse, wash and repeat the same process.

VoicesCarry said:

maybe, maybe not. one thing is for sure. he is not on trial for "the next time", he's on trial for this time.

SassyBritches said:

It is certainly in the UK press this morning.

I think that most people take the press coverage of this with a pinch of salt but I think the UK coverage in the more up market papers has been pretty balanced. Today we hear about the photographs but a couple of days ago we were hearing about Gavin's mother claiming to be "chosen by God" to bring Michael down.

Either way - I think the argument "you can't believe what you read" is so tired when it comes to Michael Jackson. It's basically become another way of saying "I don't want to believe this so therefore it is a lie".

Nobody wins in this.

If he is guilty then a child has been abused and an icon has fallen from such a terrific height that I can't imagine what the fallout will be. I really do feel for his true fans.

If he is found innocent we are looking at a mother and father who shamelessly used their son for their own gain, and a multi-millionaire who will continue to live by his own rules, no matter how dangerous they are for him or those around him.

adoreme said:

it seems like you find him guilty regardless of the trial's outcome.

SassyBritches said:

You're surprised by this? I thought it was part of the rules & regulations one must agree to before being allowed to join the Org.

Cloudbuster said:

i just think its so funny that people really get led by the media. if mj is guilty, there will be proof of it. it works like this, though: if he's found guilty these folks who want him to be guilty will say justice was served. if he's found innocent the same people will say he only got off because of his money. god forbid justice was served and the man was innocent. and its the same in reverse for many of mj's fans.

the only thing we can do is wait and see what the evidence is and how strong the case is against him.

SassyBritches said:

I'm with you all the way, Sir.

SassyBritches said:

It's not my job to find him guilty or innocent.

I do feel that his behaviour around children is inappropriate. A fully grown man should not be in bed with a child that is not his own. The trouble with MJ, like with many icons, is that he is surrouned by yes-men who never tell him when he is overstepping the boundaries of what is right by society's standards.

If he is found innocent I don't believe that he will change his ways for one moment.

SassyBritches said:

There is nothing funny about pedophilia.

MrTation said:

that's "funny" like "peculiar", not "funny" haha.

.
[Edited 9/21/04 6:57am]

i pray he is innocent only because i pray that nothing happened to those kids. the people in his camp are not his friends. they just hang on for the money and just about agree with anything he says. and thats with almost all celebrities i think.

I was thinking about it and it's probably not true because possessing such material is a crime within itself and they certainly would have charged him with that crime so he would have done some time regardless of whether he was found guilty of the other charges. THey would have him dead to rights if they found the pictures.

lovemachine said:

didn't even think of that...smart guy, you are! yeah, he would have been charged with possession of child pornography which is not amongst the filed charges.

lovemachine said:

Good thinking.

SassyBritches said:

Like this guy?

Good point.

SASSYBRITCHES

I echo your sentiments.

VoicesCarry, you just can't help yourself, can you cookie?

adoreme said:

when did it go from him sleeping on the floor in a sleeping bag to him being "in" the bed?
I personally heard him say he was on the floor ????

lovemachine said:

would this apply even if they procured the evidence impropperly?

Just so you guys know, pictures of children in their underwear or even pictures of naked children are not considered child pornography under the law. It has to be a "sexually explicit reproduction" of a child's image. So, he conceivably could have had these pictures, and still not been charged with child pornography. Just throwing that out there.





S

kremlinshadow said:

He was not in the bed with Gavin, but if I remember correctly he said he was in bed with a lot of kids(in Bashir' doc)

he was in bed with Jordy chandler back in 1993 at his mother's house and at his father's house

funny quotes from Gavin's mommy: