New topic
PrintableYou can follow the opening statements on www.thesmokinggun.com.
In the first 15 minutes of his opening Statement, an objection from Jackson lawyer Thomas Mesereau was sustained by Judge Rodney Melville when Sneddon claimed MJ was "heavily in debt". Also in the first 15minutes Sneddon directly contradicted statements from the boy in the Grand Jury transcripts. Sneddon noted that Jackson was a man who [..] had the teenage accuser referred to him as "Daddy". However in the Grand Jury transcripts the boy claims it was hé who asked MJ if he could call him daddy. "It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."
My IQ is 139, what's yours? | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
SpcMs said: You can follow the opening statements on www.thesmokinggun.com.
In the first 15 minutes of his opening Statement, an objection from Jackson lawyer Thomas Mesereau was sustained by Judge Rodney Melville when Sneddon claimed MJ was "heavily in debt". Also in the first 15minutes Sneddon directly contradicted statements from the boy in the Grand Jury transcripts. Sneddon noted that Jackson was a man who [..] had the teenage accuser referred to him as "Daddy". However in the Grand Jury transcripts the boy claims it was hé who asked MJ if he could call him daddy. If an attorney misleads or exaggerates in his/her opening statement, it can cost them the case (sometimes). Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
During that first stay, Sneddon said, Jackson pulled the boy aside at one point and asked him to ask his parents if he could stay with the performer, then 43, in his bedroom. The parents agreed and the child and his younger brother bunked that night with Jackson, (the boys slept on Jackson's bed while the performer slept on the floor). It was during the brothers's first Neverland stay that Jackson and aide Frank Cascio showed the boys pornographic web sites on a laptop computer in Jackson's bedroom. As they looked at photos of topless women, Jackson remarked "Got Milk?" at one point, Sneddon said. The singer even directed a lurid comment at his three-year-old son, who was on the bed, apparently sleeping. "Paris," he said to the boy, "you're missing a lot of pussy."
Wow, so on the very first day MJ met the boy and his brother, he showed them porn websites for (according to FoxNews) 45 minutes, while his personal aid and his son (who is called Prince, not Paris btw  ) were with him in the room. If that's true, he sure didn't lose much time (and why don't the charges include this episode???). Curious what the defense has to say about it all.
Testimony from two former Jackson employees--Salas and maid Blanca Francia--will show that Jackson, Sneddon told jurors, was "pathological" about not allowing anyone in his Neverland bedroom without his permission.
Blanca Francia was fired in the early 90ies ('91?). What about asking the current maid?? [Edited 2/28/05 11:52am] "It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."
My IQ is 139, what's yours? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SpcMs said: During that first stay, Sneddon said, Jackson pulled the boy aside at one point and asked him to ask his parents if he could stay with the performer, then 43, in his bedroom. The parents agreed and the child and his younger brother bunked that night with Jackson, (the boys slept on Jackson's bed while the performer slept on the floor). It was during the brothers's first Neverland stay that Jackson and aide Frank Cascio showed the boys pornographic web sites on a laptop computer in Jackson's bedroom. As they looked at photos of topless women, Jackson remarked "Got Milk?" at one point, Sneddon said. The singer even directed a lurid comment at his three-year-old son, who was on the bed, apparently sleeping. "Paris," he said to the boy, "you're missing a lot of pussy."
Wow, so on the very first day MJ met the boy and his brother, he showed them porn websites for (according to FoxNews) 45 minutes, while his personal aid and his son (who is called Prince, not Paris btw ) were with him in the room. If that's true, he sure didn't lose much time (and why don't the charges include this episode???). Curious what the defense has to say about it all.
Testimony from two former Jackson employees--Salas and maid Blanca Francia--will show that Jackson, Sneddon told jurors, was "pathological" about not allowing anyone in his Neverland bedroom without his permission.
Blanca Francia was fired in the early 90ies ('91?). What about asking the current maid?? [Edited 2/28/05 11:52am] Yah this is all new to me, they probably weren't added to the charges cause its nearly impossible to prove that the evnt happened with time as a main variable! and it seems to mee Sneddon was stumbling, Wasn't Paris the damn of his daughter, his son is named prince But i have to agree, he's using dated testimony's, the opening statement was rather weak, but was vivid and lurid enough to disturb a Jury, so i don't know... ... Jackson said "You're missing a lot of pussy" that allegation is laughable Not even a Skeptic would believe that claim [Edited 2/28/05 12:04pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SpcMs said: Rhondab said: I never said he SHOULD be convicted because of his behavior but its a fact of life that ppl do get accused of things because of their antics and of the things they do and say. MJ set the stage himself to LOOK guilty even if he's not. I think both sides have an uphill battle in this case BUT I still believe he will be found guilty of something...one of those charges will stick. Once again, I'm not saying he is guilty but that he fucked up his own case with stupidity. and Big up namepeace. I think we're on the same page with this one. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Stereotypical. "Society" sees nothing wrong with a woman sharing her bed with young girls, but they r alarmed when they hear a man shares his bed with children? This is the one downside 2 a more "sexually-open society".It becomes all about SEX, SEX, and SEX. As a kid, I've slept in a bed with some adults, does that mean they were sexual predators? When u r sleeping in a bed with someone, does that mean u r "sleeping with" (or having sex)that person? If Michael Jackson kept this bed situation a "little secret", then I would've been suspicious. The fact that he openly admitted 2 sometimes letting children sleep in his bed suggests 2 me that he knew there was nothing sexual going on, and he has nothing 2 hide. It's the parent's decision 2 let/not let their children sleep in someone else's bed. Not "society's"."Society" is a mix of killers, theives, rapists, liars,and cheaters, as well as "decent" folks. I have no sympathy 4 parents who put all their trust in strangers with their children.
This "case" was put 2gether months b4 Michael Jackson even entered the equation. We'll all see how this plays out very shortly. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Rhondab said: SpcMs said: I never said he SHOULD be convicted because of his behavior but its a fact of life that ppl do get accused of things because of their antics and of the things they do and say. MJ set the stage himself to LOOK guilty even if he's not. I think both sides have an uphill battle in this case BUT I still believe he will be found guilty of something...one of those charges will stick. Once again, I'm not saying he is guilty but that he fucked up his own case with stupidity. and Big up namepeace. I think we're on the same page with this one. I agree. There seem to be several degrees of opinion on MJ. 1. MJ is completely misunderstood, wrongly judged and accused by the world, and his behavior is perfectly normal and acceptable, and those who disagree are simply closed-minded and/or prejudiced against MJ. He is being tried in a kangaroo court by a biased and perhaps racist district attorney. 2. MJ is a great performer, and an eccentric cat, but his dealings with young kids are disturbing and invite suspicion, even if he is innocent. MJ is stupid for carrying on that behavior when he nearly got indicted years ago. Had he stopped that, he wouldn't be in trouble in the first place. 3. MJ is a weirdo, a pedophile, and should be locked under the jail. No excuses. There are pluses and minuses to each view, but peg me as a Type 2. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
While both opening statements don't tell much new, two notable remarks from the defense:
- Apparently Jay Leno told the SBPD that he heard the mother coaching the kids in the background when they called him. - This is the mother's third claim of false imprisonment and her fourth claim of molestation. - The mother, after being denied money from George Lopez, claimed that George Lopez stole money from the boy's wallet. - A paralegal who represented the mother in a previous case contends that she hesitated to come forward about the mothers fabricated claims because the mother once told her she had relatives in the Mexican Mafia. (btw, during opening statements the procecution said nothing about the love letters or the child pornography that at some point were rumored to have been found) [Edited 2/28/05 14:11pm] "It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."
My IQ is 139, what's yours? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
scorp84 said: Stereotypical. "Society" sees nothing wrong with a woman sharing her bed with young girls, but they r alarmed when they hear a man shares his bed with children? This is the one downside 2 a more "sexually-open society".It becomes all about SEX, SEX, and SEX.
For better, or for worse, that's the way it is. And that's why Michael should've known better. As a kid, I've slept in a bed with some adults, does that mean they were sexual predators? When u r sleeping in a bed with someone, does that mean u r "sleeping with" (or having sex)that person?
Again, it depends on context and circumstance. Michael Jackson chose to sleep with these children despite the fact: a. He didn't need to to show that he cared for them. b. He had more than enough space for them to sleep elsewhere in the house. c. He knew that the whole world was watching him. So he was just plain stupid. If Michael Jackson kept this bed situation a "little secret", then I would've been suspicious. The fact that he openly admitted 2 sometimes letting children sleep in his bed suggests 2 me that he knew there was nothing sexual going on, and he has nothing 2 hide.
One would hope so. But if he was doing something wrong, and he thought it was right, it could ALSO be possible that he was willing to expose his behavior to the world because . . . He Is Michael Jackson and Conventional Standards of Conduct Don't Apply To Him(TM). It's the parent's decision 2 let/not let their children sleep in someone else's bed. Not "society's"."Society" is a mix of killers, theives, rapists, liars,and cheaters, as well as "decent" folks. I have no sympathy 4 parents who put all their trust in strangers with their children.
What in the blue hell does that have to do with anything if a child was abused? The parent's stupidity doesn't matter. PLEASE don't tell me you're saying an abused child should not receive justice because the parents were negligent. Because that is what could possibly be inferred from that statement. And your sympathy shouldn't be with the parents in the first place. It should be with the child. This "case" was put 2gether months b4 Michael Jackson even entered the equation. We'll all see how this plays out very shortly.
1. MJ was always a part of the "equation." He has been for TWELVE YEARS. And he played right into their hands. 2. U r right. We'll see what lies ahead. My criticisms aside, I hope a) he's innocent, and b) he is FOUND innocent by the jury. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SpcMs said: While both opening statements don't tell much new, two notable remarks from the defense:
- Apparently Jay Leno told the SBPD that he heard the mother coaching the kids in the background when they called him. - This is the mother's third claim of false imprisonment and her fourth claim of molestation. (btw, during opening statements the procecution said nothing about the love letters or the child pornography that at some point were rumored to have been found) Those rumours derived from Diane Dimond and her so called Sources... And if you wan't real investigative journalism, Never go to her... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
What in the blue hell does that have to do with anything if a child was abused? The parent's stupidity doesn't matter.
Yes, it does. Their child is their responsibility. 1. MJ was always a part of the "equation."
The "star-studded" witness list isn't intended 4 people wanting 2 obtain courtside seats. They all have been selected 4 reasons (strongly)related 2 this particular case. By the way, am I the only person in this world who didn't recieve my complimentary issue of the "Conventional Standards of Conduct" instruction booklet? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
scorp84 said: What in the blue hell does that have to do with anything if a child was abused? The parent's stupidity doesn't matter.
Yes, it does. Their child is their responsibility So let I get this straight. If a child is abused by an adult who was unsupervised due to parental negligence, the state lacks an interest in prosecuting the abuser because the parent was negligent? A child isn't a car or a CD player. A child is a human being. If a child is abused, the abuser should pay. Period. Regardless of whether the parents were dumb, blind, careless or worse. Are you implying that, if MJ abused this child, it's the parent's responsibility because Michael Jackson can't help himself? The "star-studded" witness list isn't intended 4 people wanting 2 obtain courtside seats. They all have been selected 4 reasons (strongly)related 2 this particular case.
And? What does that have to do with the fact that the DA has been waiting 12 years for MJ to mess up, to get to this very point? In any event, guess who's calling most of the celebrities? By the way, am I the only person in this world who didn't recieve my complimentary issue of the "Conventional Standards of Conduct" instruction booklet?
Let me put it to you this way. Those who know that Conventional Standards of Conduct frown upon middle-aged men sleeping in the same bed, unsupervised, with young boys, to whom they're not related? They got it. They're the ones who criticize MJ for putting himself in a position to create an appearance of guilt. Those who don't know that Conventional Standards of Conduct say that, clearly didn't get their booklet. We know MJ didn't get his. BTW: you don't have to agree with Conventional Standards of Conduct, as this term is (loosely and half-jokingly) used. But they're there. [Edited 2/28/05 15:50pm] Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
scorp84 said: Stereotypical. "Society" sees nothing wrong with a woman sharing her bed with young girls, but they r alarmed when they hear a man shares his bed with children? This is the one downside 2 a more "sexually-open society".It becomes all about SEX, SEX, and SEX. As a kid, I've slept in a bed with some adults, does that mean they were sexual predators? When u r sleeping in a bed with someone, does that mean u r "sleeping with" (or having sex)that person? If Michael Jackson kept this bed situation a "little secret", then I would've been suspicious. The fact that he openly admitted 2 sometimes letting children sleep in his bed suggests 2 me that he knew there was nothing sexual going on, and he has nothing 2 hide. It's the parent's decision 2 let/not let their children sleep in someone else's bed. Not "society's"."Society" is a mix of killers, theives, rapists, liars,and cheaters, as well as "decent" folks. I have no sympathy 4 parents who put all their trust in strangers with their children.
If someone is a pedophile, they of course see nothing wrong with their behavior. They also believe that they would not ever hurt a child.
This "case" was put 2gether months b4 Michael Jackson even entered the equation. We'll all see how this plays out very shortly. I do not care if it is a woman sleeping with a girl who is not her child. Not in my house. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Let me ask the those who express unqualified, unconditional support for MJ a couple of questions. I'm not even gonna get into whether the sleeping arrangements are appropriate, because I know y'all have defended that, so that question has been answered.
1. Is sleeping with children necessary to show that you love them and support them and want to make their lives better? 2. True or false: society frowns upon adults who sleep with near-teen children. (This is not a question meant to endorse or challenge that, just to say that it is what it is.) If the answer is false, state why. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: 1. Is sleeping with children necessary to show that you love them and support them and want to make their lives better? No. namepeace said: 2. True or false: society frowns upon adults who sleep with near-teen children. (This is not a question meant to endorse or challenge that, just to say that it is what it is.) If the answer is false, state why.
True, because an eleven-year-old can read their own damn storybooks! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think I'm one of those being branded with the unconditional love tag. I don't support his behavior, nor have any personal interest in him beyond his ability to continue to make music. I’ve only responded because this case will affect that and The Michael Jackson in Court Thread II has seemed to be more about ethics than the events of the case. I also know this case and MJ’s life in particular, has sociopolitical ramifications that are being ignored disregarded.
To answer your question 1. No...and you probably mean children that aren't ones own. 2. By society do you mean the American, Eurocentric society of the 21st century? They frown on that especially when it involves two males. (unlike R.Kelly, Elvis…etc….) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CinisterCee said: namepeace said: 1. Is sleeping with children necessary to show that you love them and support them and want to make their lives better? No. namepeace said: 2. True or false: society frowns upon adults who sleep with near-teen children. (This is not a question meant to endorse or challenge that, just to say that it is what it is.) If the answer is false, state why.
True, because an eleven-year-old can read their own damn storybooks!  I'm sick and tired of the Prince fans being sick and tired of the Prince fans that are sick and tired! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lilgish said: I think I'm one of those being branded with the unconditional love tag. I don't support his behavior, nor have any personal interest in him beyond his ability to continue to make music.
1. I wasn't labeling anyone. 2. The portion that's highlighted? We actually agree on. I’ve only responded because this case will affect that and The Michael Jackson in Court Thread II has seemed to be more about ethics than the events of the case. I also know this case and MJ’s life in particular, has sociopolitical ramifications that are being ignored disregarded.
I disagree slightly. The only point many of us are trying to make is that if MJ had made prudent decisions he would not even BE in the minefield of "sociopolitical ramifications" of which you speak. Before we talk about MJ in that minefield, let's remember HOW HE GOT THERE. To answer your question
1. No...and you probably mean children that aren't ones own. It could apply either way. A lot of parents would answer that ? "no" as well. 2. By society do you mean the American, Eurocentric society of the 21st century? They frown on that especially when it involves two males. (unlike R.Kelly, Elvis…etc….)
Walk into any black American community and ask that ? and see what the answer is. I bet at least 6 of 10 would say "yes." But this is not scientific polling, I admit! 
In any event, even if your answer is correct, you get my drift. That's the way it 'tis. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said: scorp84 said: Stereotypical. "Society" sees nothing wrong with a woman sharing her bed with young girls, but they r alarmed when they hear a man shares his bed with children? This is the one downside 2 a more "sexually-open society".It becomes all about SEX, SEX, and SEX. As a kid, I've slept in a bed with some adults, does that mean they were sexual predators? When u r sleeping in a bed with someone, does that mean u r "sleeping with" (or having sex)that person? If Michael Jackson kept this bed situation a "little secret", then I would've been suspicious. The fact that he openly admitted 2 sometimes letting children sleep in his bed suggests 2 me that he knew there was nothing sexual going on, and he has nothing 2 hide. It's the parent's decision 2 let/not let their children sleep in someone else's bed. Not "society's"."Society" is a mix of killers, theives, rapists, liars,and cheaters, as well as "decent" folks. I have no sympathy 4 parents who put all their trust in strangers with their children.
If someone is a pedophile, they of course see nothing wrong with their behavior. They also believe that they would not ever hurt a child.
This "case" was put 2gether months b4 Michael Jackson even entered the equation. We'll all see how this plays out very shortly. I do not care if it is a woman sleeping with a girl who is not her child. Not in my house. Their are very little Pedophiles that actually admit to their acts and try to sancitify them. Most Pedophiles are in Orginizations such as NAMBLA, and usually fight laws against child sex laws etc... They claim as long as the sex is sonsentual between both persons, that it is not wrong. The Common pedophile is the, relunctant father or step father, These people are in your family, and now that their acts are devious but can't help to succumb to their urges. Jackson never admitted to any deviant acts, thus he's not part of the first category, The jury's still out on the second category, The only thing Jackson every sanctified where sleepovers, he said on many occaisions that, what he was accused of was sick, and disgusting. So a comment like pedophiles see that their acts are fine, is quite erroneos, Pedophilia is a chemically imbalanced disease much like Manic Deppressiveness, The hormones in a male or female, find arousal at such a level, they are aroused by children, They can't help being aroused by children, and they only act on impulses, Its like sex addicts, 85% of the time pedophiles know exactly what they're doing. and that it is wrong | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Michael Jackson likes to sleep with young boys.
Michael Jackson tells us he doesn't have sexual thoughts about young boys. Michael Jackson has among his porn photos, magazines of nude young boys. Make all the excuses you like, but if that doesn't concern you, I worry about you. 
Clearly he is not the man he has pretended to be for 3 decades. If I was a huge fan i'd be pissed that MJ has lied to me. Imagine those people that left their jobs to cheer for him outside the court room. Day One of the Trial: The World finds out MJ has 23 Magazines of Nude Boys from the 1960's. wow, imagine being a fan Imagine for 20+ years you defend a guy & now you find out he has lied to you & everyone. He is clearly not the man He & Epic Record's Public Relations Department said he was.
That must be hard to deal with. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ElectricBlue said: Michael Jackson likes to sleep with young boys.
Michael Jackson tells us he doesn't have sexual thoughts about young boys. Michael Jackson has among his porn photos, magazines of nude young boys. Make all the excuses you like, but if that doesn't concern you, I worry about you.
Clearly he is not the man he has pretended to be for 3 decades. If I was a huge fan i'd be pissed that MJ has lied to me. Imagine those people that left their jobs to cheer for him outside the court room. Day One of the Trial: The World finds out MJ has 23 Magazines of Nude Boys from the 1960's. wow, imagine being a fan Imagine for 20+ years you defend a guy & now you find out he has lied to you & everyone. He is clearly not the man He & Epic Record's Public Relations Department said he was.
That must be hard to deal with. You talk as if you knew Michael all your life. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ElectricBlue said: Michael Jackson likes to sleep with young boys.
Michael Jackson tells us he doesn't have sexual thoughts about young boys. Michael Jackson has among his porn photos, magazines of nude young boys. Make all the excuses you like, but if that doesn't concern you, I worry about you.
Clearly he is not the man he has pretended to be for 3 decades. If I was a huge fan i'd be pissed that MJ has lied to me. Imagine those people that left their jobs to cheer for him outside the court room. Day One of the Trial: The World finds out MJ has 23 Magazines of Nude Boys from the 1960's. wow, imagine being a fan Imagine for 20+ years you defend a guy & now you find out he has lied to you & everyone. He is clearly not the man He & Epic Record's Public Relations Department said he was.
That must be hard to deal with. You should have realised something was up when he paid Jordy Chandler off. No smoke without fire. There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ElectricBlue said: Clearly he is not the man he has pretended to be for 3 decades. If I was a huge fan i'd be pissed that MJ has lied to me. Imagine those people that left their jobs to cheer for him outside the court room.
Day One of the Trial: The World finds out MJ has 23 Magazines of Nude Boys from the 1960's. wow, imagine being a fan Imagine for 20+ years you defend a guy & now you find out he has lied to you & everyone. He is clearly not the man He & Epic Record's Public Relations Department said he was.
That must be hard to deal with. I'll admit being unconfortable defending stuff like this, but someone has to do it
First of all, he isn't charged with possessing child pornography. So apparently these magazines don't qualify as child pornography. Secondly, the prosecution described them as nudist magazines from the 1960's that showed naked children. The prosecution is know for labeling things rather dramatically. Here's what the Drudge Report had to say about some of the items: There is less than meets the eye when it comes to search warrant inventories:
On the inventory, Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department officials reported seizing "The Chop Suey Club" a book described as containing "photos of nude young boys." While it may sound to the uninitiated like some Asian rough trade volume, the book is actually by famed fashion photographer Bruce Weber. "It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."
My IQ is 139, what's yours? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Let's just say it's not natural if you aren't related.
Let's just say it's not standard practice. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| No, Cloudy, it ain't natural. K? Normal grown men don't like to sleep with little boys that don't belong to them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: No, Cloudy, it ain't natural. K? Normal grown men don't like to sleep with little boys that don't belong to them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: VoicesCarry said: Let's just say it's not natural if you aren't related.
Let's just say it's not standard practice. Seriously, Cloudbuster, how can you stand by that? I just can't understand why MJ fans are so blind to this. This is mind control beyond all reasonable belief. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
adoreme said: Cloudbuster said: Let's just say it's not standard practice.
Seriously, Cloudbuster, how can you stand by that? I just can't understand why MJ fans are so blind to this. This is mind control beyond all reasonable belief. If folk are doing nothing more than going to sleep then I don't see what the problem is. Yes, seriously. In my teens I stayed at many friends' houses who were all different ages, sometimes sleeping in the same room and.... GOSH!!!... sometimes even in the same bed.  There must be something wrong with me! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Completely different situation, Cloudy. As a grown man, do you actively seek out prepubescent boys to go to bed with? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
adoreme said: BlueNote said: What is disgusting? The diaper story? No, i wouldn't have an opinion. I would ask who this guy is and why the children were there. BlueNote Are you serious? I mean, I'm all up for keeping an open mind and all but you have to have some sort of standards in society. I want the society to have standards and I believe it has, but those standards are lost when it comes to the media. I know their game how they spin and what they want. I don't give a damn what they wright. I think you're kidding yourself if you believe you would give the man the benefit of the doubt were this an average man on the street. The fact is that it's your idol and you are making excuses for him. No I'm not excusing anything. First of all, I followed the case from the very beginning. I was shocked when I saw the helicopter pics from Neverland in Nov. '03 and thought for a couple of hours that it could be possible. Then Sneddon went on TV with his press conference and acted like a fool. That was very suspicious. Why was this whole thing so well presented in the media, right from start? Camera Teams, helicopters, Dimond interviews with the DA and a public relations company which offered their work for free. Too much buzz, if you ask me. Are those your standards? It was a witch hunt, period. This was american media at its worst! He wanted him to have no chance to defend himself. You need have a set of standards and rules in society otherwise you just get anarchy. MJ flouted them. Even if nothing sexual happened between him and the boy, he needs to realise that his money and status do not give him a license to behave any which way he chooses. Land of the f*cking free! (sorry) How is he suppose to act? I hate to repeat myself, but it is NOT illegal to hold the hands of a minor. What are those standards? Not beating your wife or kids? Not stealing? Not discriminating? Not letting your kids alone at home or drinking in front of them? My dear friend, that is anarchy. Nobody cares! Why? Because the media doesn't care anymore! We want shootings, we want terrorism, we don't want social issues! But when a freaky superstar gets the spotlight and the media wants to see him down almost everybody just agrees. And the bloody parents should have put a stop to the sleepovers the second they heard about them. There's no place for a small boy in a grown man's bed. Yuk.  Do you listen to yourself? You are talking about mysterious 'standards' and 'not normal' or 'no place for small boy'. Ask yourself what makes you think that way? Because the media wants you to see bad things in everything and everybody, they want you to be afraid and scared. BlueNote | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
