I'm only slightly ribbing you.

It's good to read your 'inside' info.

This is NOT FUNNY!! (I can´t help myself )

papaa said:

If you tell me your English, I'd see the humor in it

I know my grammar is agg, sad part about being a writer
All of the creativity, Yet no grammar discipline

Hey thats why they made Editors !!!

lilgish said:

TSColdman?

guess you all missed that. Tom Sneddon IS a cold man.

never mind.

I don't know where this came from but i bet these descriptions are bogus too.
[Edited 2/24/05 14:01pm]

SpcMs said:

Fantatistic, great to see im not alone on this,
I would say its about race, but Judge Melville has been fair and also shot down many of prosecutions motion.
The Judge is not who im worried about, its the jury.
Racism sadly does come into play and some people do not wish to hear that,
its hard to find out that in this mondern society someones race is still a problem. Alot of people seriously just have a problem with black men, regardless of fame,
I still question many things that happened with the 93 case...
i believe that one had to do with race, cause dismissing those defense motions where wrong, and where civil rights violations.
This one so far is going smoothly, lets hope it stays that way.

the cards have been dealed,
Its time to play the game...

Check out the spiffy waiscoat! or should that be spliffy?




[Edited 2/24/05 13:44pm]

Marrk said:

I'll take that bet, cause i know for fact that list is correct

namepeace said:[quote]

SefraNSue said:

thanks NamePeace!!! You completely understand my statements!!!

SefraNSue said:

I never mentioned that "Jail" will teach MJ humility BUT at the same time, Jail can teach humility.

I actually didn't say anything "uneducated". I simply made a prediction about the outcome of the trial. I think you wanted to say something against the Org and this was a good opportunity because you really went overboard regarding my comments.

SefraNSue said:

Man, you can't even have an opinion up in this joint no more. Guilty or innocent, I have zero sympathy for him. There are so many guilty people in this whole thing. Unfortunately, if Mike goes to jail, he will be the only one.

Rhondab said:

It's still pretty sad you think he will be convicted because of his antics, and not necessarily because he is guilty. It's also a reflection on how hard it will be for him to get a fair trial.

SpcMs said:

I've never stated WHY I think this.....so I don't know what you think is "sad"

I can wrap my mind around the thought that he might be innocent. Can MJ fans wrap their minds around the fact that he might actually be guilty? Would you let him sleep in the same bed as your kid? Anyone see anything wrong with letting a stranger sleep with your kid? Hell, with letting anyone that's not a blood relative sleep with you kid?

Rhondab said:

You agreed with someone else's analysis explaining why you think this (sorry if i misinterpreted any of your comments, but they seemed pretty clear to me):

Jackson's accuser has history of changing his story
'The Abrams Report' exclusive on the family of Michael Jackson's accuser

Updated: 4:17 p.m. ET Feb. 23, 2005


NBC News' Mike Taibbi reported on MSNBC's ‘The Abrams Report’ that the alleged victim in the Michael Jackson sexual abuse case had previously accused both his parents of abuse.

Taibbi says Jackson's accuser, then seven-years-old, got sick at school. Before the mother could be notified, the father's attorney Russell Halpern says, "the boy…broke down and started crying, saying 'I don't want you to call my mother because she'll beat me... she'll hit me.’"

Documents obtained exclusively by NBC News show an investigation had begun by Children and Family Services into alleged abuse of the boy by his parents. But the boy changed his story and the allegation was declared "unfounded."

“The same boy denied any hitting by the parents," says Halpern.

Four years later in 2000, NBC News first reported that the accuser's mother belatedly added on a charge that she was not only beaten but had been sexually abused by a JC Penny's security guard after a shoplifting incident that led to a lawsuit. The children backed her story in what a defense psychiatrist called "clearly rehearsed testimony." But the sex abuse charge was never mentioned in the settlement JC Penney's offered without admitting any wrongdoing.

Tom Griffin, JC Penny's attorney says "She just came up with this fairy tale... not a fairy tale, a horror story...! And ran with it.

The following year in 2001, police responded to an ugly argument that spilled into the street during the parent's bitter divorce. At first, Jackson's accuser and his siblings told a social worker they had witnessed "no hitting, just yelling" by their father over the years "and not a lot of yelling."

During this interview, the mother was away at work. Halpern says she was furious that her children were interviewed without her being present.

But days later, with their mother present, the boy and his siblings changed that story. Now it was daily beatings of all family members: punching, kicking, breaking bones, holding the mother's head under water and constant threats to kill them all.

Weeks later, the mother added that she had "observed the (father) inappropriately touching" the couple's daughter, when the daughter was much younger.

However, domestic abuse expert Nancy Lemon says the delay in making the sex abuse charge doesn't diminish its believability. "It's actually quite typical for sexual abuse either of an adult or of a child to be reported much later."

But the father's attorney says he never heard one word about the sex abuse allegation from anyone.

Halpern says the father was never charged with sexual abuse."I guess it got as much attention from the prosecutors as we gave it,” he says. “It was just a rant on her part that's patently untrue."

In the end, Halpern advised the father to plead no contest to one charge of spousal abuse and one charge of cruelty to a child in exchange for a sentence of probation. There was no jail time, despite the dramatic allegations against him of sex abuse and physical brutality.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7014150/

Rhondab said:

Rhondab 1
SpcMs 0

VoicesCarry said:

WTF? That's exactly the same thing as I quoted, and it confirms everything I said... Also, I never attacked anyone, so why would you want to keep a score? Or are you just beeing silly?
[Edited 2/24/05 17:40pm]

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

see what your not understanding is Jackson wasn't a stranger...
When you spend time with someone more than a week, they are no longer strangers your friends,
The Family considered HIM family!
Big difference...

Now saying if your letting someone you just knew that day to sleep with your child than no...

But if this is my friend whom i knew, whom i shared my feelings with, whom i talked too laughed with...
a person that knows me and i know him
Of course i will,
hell i'd jump in the bed as well

the way you make it seem is he's seducing the boy,

giving him those Come hither eyes, and convincing him to sleep in the bed with him

You say fans should consider that he might guilty...

Fine...

But stop demonizing him,
You do that

Fans may stop glorifying him...

Simple...

SpcMs said:

It's not sad to think that. It is actually feasible.

If any 46 year-old man not named Michael Jackson were to be filmed holding hands and cooing over a young boy the way Michael Jackson did, and admitted in a separate interview he slept with young boys on several occasions, it got aired on television, that man should expect to be investigated if not indicted. Even if this is Michael's misguided way of showing love in the "agape" sense to those in need, in the real world, where he is actually being tried, most people would begin to suspect him.

I understand ur point, but it's partly his own fault if he can't get a fair trial. His actions are very hard to explain away, and the fact he's MJ isn't enough.

Which is why I am furious with him forcarrying on w/his activites with kids, innocent or not, and doing the doc which made matters worse.

namepeace said:

SpcMs said:

Someone needs to stop taking things so seriously.

SpcMs -1

, there´s something to it!

Luv4oneanotha said:

A lot of people are using the fact the Michael's not a blood relative of the boy as "proof" of his guilt. Problem with this argument is, most abuse is commited by blood relatives.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

And i still think it's sad you can get convicted of a crime simply because people see your behavior as weird, strange, or socially unacceptable. What you are saying is that, when he is found guilty, there's a good chance that he is not guilty, but that he is simply punished for not conforming. Whether you agree with his antics or not, I don't think I have to explain this is a slippery slope that gets dangerous very quickly (one small example: sooo you are cheating on your wife, and you admit having sex with a girl that is 15yrs younger than you, I guess you must have raped her).

Exactly

BTW SPCMS - nice quote in your signature. Kinda reminds me of MJ as well.

krayzie said:

The accuser and his family has a shady past,no doubt,but will the defense be able to use all this in court? Somehow I doubt it.

SpcMs said:

Sad. but as Richard Pryor used to say, "that's the politics, baby." That's the way it is. People not named MJ are convicted under similar circumstances all the time, and always have been (clinically insane or just misunderstoood).



Yes. But let's be clear. Lightening your skin is one thing. Destroying your face is one thing. Sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber is one thing. Trying to buy deceased people's bones is one thing.

Sleeping in the same bed with prepubescent children during unsupervised sleepovers when you're a grown man? Come on, now. That goes BEYOND mere eccentricity. That's walking a very thin line between eccentricity and sexual deviancy. I'm not saying he necessarily DID anything. I'm saying that this kind of behavior can't simply be written off as "that's just the way Michael is."



If that girl is under 18, then, well . . . yes. That's why they call it statutory rape.

If you're talking about a legal May-December romance, not necessarily.

But that is altogether different from sleeping in a bed with young boys. I see what you're saying, but the example doesn't really fit here.

Of course the molestation charges are going to have to be proven. But not even MJ's staunchest supporters can deny that if MJ had never been in bed with these kids, and if he had never ADMITTED it, there would have been no raid, no indictment and no trial.

namepeace said:

That's fair enough. I guess there was a time when being accused of child molestation was the last thing on Michael's mind. But after the events of '93 you would think he'd have been a little more cautious. I defend MJ more than most but there's no doubt that he's put himself in a dodgy position by being a stubborn fool. I hope he learns from his mistakes this time around.


.
[Edited 2/25/05 6:36am]

SpcMs said:

Would any of yuo guys let Michael Jackson sleep in a bed with your child? Can I just get an answer to that one? And if not, why not?