Is Michael Jackson A Gay Pedeophile Biatch?

Of course some are, people just think Michael is not based on the facts that aside from a lunatic mother who is claiming abuse after letting her child stay there in the first place, and has been known to 'set people up' like this on other occations.

Aside from the fact that there is no evidence against him aside from people yelling out he is a freak, other reasons are he is in the guiness book of records for donating to the most charities many for children, he does so much for children all around the world, he sings about making the world a better place for children as well, and his entire life has basically been a series of events that spell out he would never sexually abuse a child, and loves children in the good way that most adults do.

Though some are bad, it should be known that most are not, the vast majority are not. They are just plagued by DARK thoughts, not necessarily sick...but twisted to be sure, as you are, thoughts that the entire world is a batch of perverted evil people, who cannot be trusted. However the fact that you hopefully do not act on the conclusive thoughts you have is what decides whether you are sick as a person or not, rather than just with thoughts.

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Gawddamn...
go to Smokinggun.com and read the court release of the 1993 case....

He is a pedophile, assclown!

"45 year old man charged with seven counts of committing lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 and two counts of giving the boy alcohol in order to seduce him. "

I really doubt there is no evidence as you claim Quest. There must be plenty of that to bring charges and present a case. The hard evidence is not allowed in the public domain until after presented to the court. So please dont say there is no evidence just because it has not been made public yet.

The only thing I found at the smoking gun was documents, which support his innocence, 100%.

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
The only thing I found at the smoking gun was documents, which support his innocence, 100%.

:bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd::bnghd:

Well really, I put in a search for Michael Jackson and that is all that came up, documents about how the charges were unfounded, and showing it is just police blowing things out of proportion.

Perhaps you are just trying to draw your own conclusions off of things.

I think the District attorney has more evidence than what been published publically on the internet and news stories. It has something to do with right to a fair trial and presenting the evidence in court to a judge and jury. Evidence has not been presented yet only the charge. We will see evidence during the trial. Did you not ever have a civics class?

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by dreamrebel]

Here, bizzatch, the statment by THE CHILD!

HERE!

Thanks Mig. Its a pleasure to have you join the thread. Peace to you my brother.

EVERYONE MUST READ THIS - Migs Link to molested kids statement:

www.thesmokinggun.com...

Wow - what a sick 40 year old. Calling a thirteen year old kid over and over. Liktrying to court him. Even while on tour, talking for up to three hours. Dude thats so sick and wrong.

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by dreamrebel]

I have seen this before. This typed up document seems fake, before you start blasting just look at the way the language is. This is certainly not the way a 13 year old would talk, especially if they were molested, it sounds like a piece of fan fiction from an adult who calculated the story very carefully piece by piece.

On another note, surely if this interview were real Sneddon would have gobbled it up and shown it to the press, instead he sits there trying to defend himself looking like an idiot on worldwide news. He did then, and does now. "Sneddon denies that the current case stems from a personal animus against Jackson. " Well I doubt it, he failed the first time, and now needs another crack at him, by any means necessary.

Also, have you ever considered that it is just someone seeing Jackson as an easy target, and doing this to him? As I have posted before many people accuse others of things all the time for money or fame, it does not mean it is true. "Billie Jean is not my lover."

[Edited on 24-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Why must you try to change my opinion?

That's how I talk, and I'm 14....

Ass-

Quest - serious question.

Are you Michael Jackson using the name Quest? Your very defensive and have little fact or substance.

I am not trying to change your opinion by force, just providing some new views, and alternate facts, so you can get a clearer view of the picture, and perhaps change your mind of your own will.

Well, when you were 13 did you talk like that with such precision, not chat like that, but talk in real life that way. I do not even see you talking this way in text, a child at the age of 13 would not have such precise, perfect answers, unless of course it was all a scheme hatched by the boys mother...meaning it is REHEARSED, and then that would mean even if it is a 'real' document, it is useless, since the allegations would be false in the first place. People are accused every day across the world as I said...they are not all guilty. This is why we have a trial system, to try and root out the innocent people and be sure not to punish them.

My opinion is different than yours and I am merely defending it, rather than trying to change your own. If you find your opinion changing with my defence, then perhaps you were wrong in the first place.

If I were being pressed for answers like that in a serious situation I would've talked like that..

hehe! Motherbitch!

Originally posted by Amuk

You really are sick man.

I am not the one taking my kids to sleep with a 45 year old man, am I?

How twisted is your logic to say that thinking that people taking there children to sleep with a grown man is wrong makes ME the sick one?

I never said ALL of them, but what would you call the parents thaty took the payoff the last time if not pimps?

And if you dont think SOME, not all, parents are capable of this kind of stuff than you are VERY naive.

Right, whatever, thought you weren't arguing anymore?

Originally posted by dreamrebel
Quest - serious question.

Are you Michael Jackson using the name Quest? Your very defensive and have little fact or substance.

Speaking of facts and substance, where's the prosecutions facts and substance?

You all say "he's guilty because he's weird" but where's your actual evidence?

None of you 'know' anything, you just believe what other people have said, heh, and I'm called naive...

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
I am not trying to change your opinion by force, just providing some new views, and alternate facts, so you can get a clearer view of the picture, and perhaps change your mind of your own will.

Well, when you were 13 did you talk like that with such precision, not chat like that, but talk in real life that way. I do not even see you talking this way in text, a child at the age of 13 would not have such precise, perfect answers, unless of course it was all a scheme hatched by the boys mother...meaning it is REHEARSED, and then that would mean even if it is a 'real' document, it is useless, since the allegations would be false in the first place. People are accused every day across the world as I said...they are not all guilty. This is why we have a trial system, to try and root out the innocent people and be sure not to punish them.

My opinion is different than yours and I am merely defending it, rather than trying to change your own. If you find your opinion changing with my defence, then perhaps you were wrong in the first place.

Sorry mate, but that report will have been written by a lawyer for the kid and approved by the kid. Not the kids actual words no, but his sentiment.

Originally posted by mig12
If I were being pressed for answers like that in a serious situation I would've talked like that..

hehe! Motherbitch!

Look, can we all stop with the childish name-calling please? It's not befitting a debate or a discussion. Nobody on this forum is on trial or is accused of anything so come on, act like grown ups will you?

Dany in the United States. Presenting evidence does not happen in the public eye (ie to the media and news) prior to the actual trial.

Every US citizen is guaranteed the right to a fair trial per the constitution. As a result, it is against the law to release evidence against a defendent to the public prior to trial and is punishable by jail. This is why no evidence has been stated to the media just yet. But dont you fret, the law requires evidence be presented in court to a judge and jury. We will see evidence during the trial which has not begun yet. And not until then. The only things out there right now are specualtion of the evidence, rumors, and leaks. But rest assure, the prosecution has already presented the evidence to be used to a judge in closed quarters out of public view, to ensure there was enough to warrant a case. Hope that helps you understand the process and why you are not aware of any evidence yet.



[Edited on 25-2-2004 by dreamrebel]

Originally posted by dreamrebel
Dany in the United States. Presenting evidence does not happen in the public eye (ie to the media and news) prior to the actual trial.

Every US citizen is guaranteed the right to a fair trial per the constitution. As a result, it is against the law to release evidence against a defendent to the public prior to trial and is punishable by jail. This is why no evidence has been stated to the media just yet. But dont you fret, the law requires evidence be presented in court to a judge and jury. We will see evidence during the trial which has not begun yet. And not until then. The only things out there right now are specualtion of the evidence, rumors, and leaks. But rest assure, the prosecution has already presented the evidence to be used to a judge in closed quarters out of public view, to ensure there was enough to warrant a case. Hope that helps you understand the process and why you are not aware of any evidence yet.



[Edited on 25-2-2004 by dreamrebel]

Erm, that was my point, none of YOU have seen any evidence so you're saying he's guilty just because you think he's weird.
You're being incredibly judgemental based on hearsay and rumour and it's pretty pathetic.
The fact that people are even discussing "Is he guilty or not" is totally stupid because you've got no evidence to go off either way.
Just wait for the trial before you all make up your minds, don't be sheep.