The Story (
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/03/jackson/index.html)
Personaly, police should have done this long ago. remember in Pinochio, they used a theme park to draw in kids to turn them into donkeys?
Micheal Jacskon uses a theme park to draw in kids for his own unspeackable pleasures.
They think they're above the law.
Wynona Rider,
OJ
"Peewee herman" guy
Michael too.
You think Micheal is guilty?
Discuss...
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
"Peewee herman" guy
all he did was masturbate in a freaking porno theatre. :x
what else would you do in that place? eat popcorn and admire the story?
Personally I dunno if he molested anyone or not. Personally, I really don't care. These parents they hear this crap on the news, yet they still let their kids go? wtf, you don't want em touched, don't let them go. The parents should be arrested for idiocy.
Evidence would suggest that he is in fact, a freaky perv. And the only odd skin condition he suffers from begins with "blea", and ends with "ching".
Originally posted by InsaneSith
all he did was masturbate in a freaking porno theatre. :x
Actually, no. He was busted a while back swapping kiddie porn with that guy that played the principal from Feris Buelers Day Off.
>.>
<.<
I'm serious.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
all he did was masturbate in a freaking porno theatre. :x
what else would you do in that place? eat popcorn and admire the story?
Lets consider this IS a public place. You can't do that in Public.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
Personally I dunno if he molested anyone or not. Personally, I really don't care. These parents they hear this crap on the news, yet they still let their kids go? wtf, you don't want em touched, don't let them go. The parents should be arrested for idiocy.
I agree on that. Parents should know better than to let kids go with someone who's been nown to do this trash.
Why would anyone WANT to be with a kid? I say it is either to be gross, or he has been with too many women and he gets tired of them and needs somthing different to.. you know....
I agree, after all of the storys so far would any parent let their kid go to his ranch? no. not unless they thought they could say their child was molested and sue.
I think jacko is very missunderstood, I think he just likes chilldren, I don't think he would mean to harm them in any way, but he definatly does have isues.
If I had kids I wouldn't let him near them.
I say wait and see what they find.
Originally posted by jon_hill987
I say wait and see what they find.
What could they find? unless he made porno videos with kids, i doub they would find enough evidence to convict him.
Take OJ for example, they had enough evidence to hang him and "not guilty" was the verdict.
...but that's just me.
why has it taken so long to search his house for evidence?
Originally posted by Leper Messiah
why has it taken so long to search his house for evidence?
Maybie he ia getting speacial treatment becuase he is upper class and a celebrity.
That last I heard in the sordid Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman) story was that they suspected he may have gotten some kiddie porn, like the Ferris Beuller's day off actor.
But the trouble is that the guy's porn stash is SO HUGE that it would take them a long time to investigate everything to see if it was in fact in his possession.
Anyway, I tend to avoid celebrity court cases. What's the point anyway? One on the one hand you can say a famous person will always be hurt by the publicity because they can't escape it. On the other hand since they are famous their fans may think they innocent no matter what. On still the other hand, they tend to have so much money that they can get off from these kinds of things compared to the average person.
Then again, isn't MJJ basically broke? Like MC Hammer, he's squandered his fortunes and failed to bounce his career back, so he's in big trouble. Then again he has so many friends he can probably put up a good enough fight if he wants to. In any case, for now he still holds onto a lot of property, so that could explain why it's taking so long (other than any artificial delays using his celebrity status, etc).
I feel sorry for the guy (he's obviously got some severe emotional and self-image issues), but if he's guilty, well, he needs to be punished, for the victim's sake.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4097417.stm)
just in case anyone is interested in the latest developments.
Sounds like another OJ trial to me.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Maybie he ia getting speacial treatment becuase he is upper class and a celebrity. hardly, people have basically hung him up to dry.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
hardly, people have basically hung him up to dry.
if it was anyone else he would be in prison already.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
if it was anyone else he would be in prison already. no. Infact, this one is going quicker than most you never hear about on the news, simply due to the fact that the person commiting the crime wasn't a celebrity. This is probably one of the fastest moving investigations of child molestation I've read about in a while. He owns the Neverland Ranch, that's a lot of place to search.
What I think about him having kids there is that, well he missed pretty much his entire childhood, with all the singing and touring he was forced to do. People like that tend to build an inner child type of complex. What they usually do to get rid of it is try to relive their childhood, but as a child instead of however they lived it originally. In his case, he just wanted to play around at the carnival and all that with his friends, but instead he had to tour pretty much his entire childhood.
I can't really blame the guy for wanting to fix it.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
no. Infact, this one is going quicker than most you never hear about on the news, simply due to the fact that the person commiting the crime wasn't a celebrity. This is probably one of the fastest moving investigations of child molestation I've read about in a while. He owns the Neverland Ranch, that's a lot of place to search.
years ago he was acused of molestion before and he didn't get sentance yet. he got away with it last time. anyone else would have got jailed the first time.
What I think about him having kids there is that, well he missed pretty much his entire childhood, with all the singing and touring he was forced to do. People like that tend to build an inner child type of complex. What they usually do to get rid of it is try to relive their childhood, but as a child instead of however they lived it originally. In his case, he just wanted to play around at the carnival and all that with his friends, but instead he had to tour pretty much his entire childhood.
so you are saying to recover his "lost childhood" he has to sleep with a child?
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
years ago he was acused of molestion before and he didn't get sentance yet. he got away with it last time. anyone else would have got jailed the first time.
The parents of the child that accused him asked for an out of court settlement. Of course he didn't get charged, charges were dropped when they recieved payment.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
so you are saying to recover his "lost childhood" he has to sleep with a child? No. Don't be stupid.
also you don't know if he's sleeping with children.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
also you don't know if he's sleeping with children.
Yes he is, he addmited as much in an interveiw, however that does not imply he had sex with the children or molested them in any way.
Wrong, he said he would allow children to sleep in his bed, but not with him in it.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
The parents of the child that accused him asked for an out of court settlement. Of course he didn't get charged, charges were dropped when they recieved payment.
In ANY other case the state would've picked up the charges. Money makes the world go round, I guess.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
The parents of the child that accused him asked for an out of court settlement. Of course he didn't get charged, charges were dropped when they recieved payment.
THAT is called a BRIBE! The rich people do that to avoid puplic punishment. he still got away with it becuase he's rich.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
No. Don't be stupid.
also you don't know if he's sleeping with children.
YOU don't know if he is not!
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
THAT is called a BRIBE! The rich people do that to avoid puplic punishment. he still got away with it becuase he's rich.
THE PARENTS! asked for money. He didn't approach them, they asked. I would do the same even if innocent. Because going to court you'd lose millions in a case like that.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
YOU don't know if he is not!
True, but unlike a majority of people, and the police, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Prove to me he's guilty, find evidence that tells he did it. I'll admit he's guilty.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
THE PARENTS! asked for money. He didn't approach them, they asked. I would do the same even if innocent. Because going to court you'd lose millions in a case like that.
they aproached him with the lawsuit. and then he offered the bribe.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
THE PARENTS! asked for money. He didn't approach them, they asked. I would do the same even if innocent. Because going to court you'd lose millions in a case like that.
True, but unlike a majority of people, and the police, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Prove to me he's guilty, find evidence that tells he did it. I'll admit he's guilty.
Well said, the parents are just money grabbing, and i don't know what the law says in the US but here in the UK it is innocent until proven guilty.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
they aproached him with the lawsuit. and then he offered the bribe. wrong.
It wasn't a bribe because they blackmailed him.
"pay up or we file a lawsuit" that sort'a thing.
It doesn't matter what you want to call it, or who came up with the idea of solving it with the almighty dollar. The fact is, were that anyone else, the state would've picked up the charges, like I already said. If only I had piles of money...I'd rape one of your kids, or you kids as it were, and buy my way out of it, to prove a point. Just for a goof.
And is it just me or did he turn loose of that money awefully easy? If he was so farkin' innocent, why not stand his ground? Say "**** no! I ain't about to pay! I didn't do anything wrong, you greedy bastids! See you in court, ****wits! Prove I did something there!" The money spent keeping his witness quiet could've paid for a badass lawyer two or three times, and he might have came out looking like something other than the weird child molestor pervert most everyone thinks he is. Giving up the money as easy as he did, in my opinion, did not help his reputation whatsoever. Made it seem shady. Like a way to sweep it under the rug and get it out of public eye ASAFP.
And even if he didn't do anything wrong, I hope he's found guilty, jailed, and raped whilst incarcerated if for no other reason than helping along this feeble minded "pop" music that people can't seem to get enough of. Seriously. Enough with that crap.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Personaly, police should have done this long ago. remember in Pinochio, they used a theme park to draw in kids to turn them into donkeys?
Micheal Jacskon uses a theme park to draw in kids for his own unspeackable pleasures.
That is the most amazing thing I've ever heard. I think you just put the anal in analogy!
Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Giving up the money as easy as he did, in my opinion, did not help his reputation whatsoever. Made it seem shady. Like a way to sweep it under the rug and get it out of public eye ASAFP.
Oh yeah, that is true in a sense. But then maybe, just maybe his lawyers would have advised him spending a fraction of the money in an out-of-court settlement with the idea that people would have some faith in humankind, in fatherhood and motherhood. What kind of parent would take a wad of cash instead of putting their child's abuser away for a long time anyway? My optimistic side says no-one, which means they were in it for the money and Jacko was an easy target my pessimistic? Well, I hope both sides are happy with themselves.
As for the current case, I'm sick of it. Jacko is an easy target and it comes off to me as more of a way for Rupert Murdoch and the media to make more money. Sickening.
Originally posted by CapNColostomy And even if he didn't do anything wrong, I hope he's found guilty, jailed, and raped whilst incarcerated if for no other reason than helping along this feeble minded "pop" music that people can't seem to get enough of. Seriously. Enough with that crap.
You rebel you.
My guess though would be that the state had a large lack of evidence so it would've been futile to further the case. And with noone willing to testify, short of forcing a witness to show they couldn't really do anything.
I personally don't care anymore. Anyone willing to let their kid still go there after the accusations is an idiot. Why would you let your kid go there if you think MJ is a child molestor? Would you willingly let your child go to an accused child molestors house? Of course not.
Originally posted by InsaneSith
My guess though would be that the state had a large lack of evidence so it would've been futile to further the case. And with noone willing to testify, short of forcing a witness to show they couldn't really do anything.
I personally don't care anymore. Anyone willing to let their kid still go there after the accusations is an idiot. Why would you let your kid go there if you think MJ is a child molestor? Would you willingly let your child go to an accused child molestors house? Of course not.
Unless you were facked in the head and were banking on a huge out-of-court settlement deal from the easiest most obvious multi-millionaire of course.
Nah, I don't have that much motivation. Too much effort.
Originally posted by idel
Unless you were facked in the head and were banking on a huge out-of-court settlement deal from the easiest most obvious multi-millionaire of course.
Finally some one with the same opinion as me, when i said that, no one believed me.
there is no other reason why these people would let their kids go to "Jacko's".
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
He could have molested other kids.
And you know this... how...
The Irony is...you have this thread....but then you also made THIS (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147389) thread.
Originally posted by ET Warrior
The Irony is...you have this thread....but then you also made THIS (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147389) thread.
*giggles*
Oh ET, you slay me :xp:
As for the Michael Jackson hubbub, I'll wait till they decide if he's guilty or not. I think he's guilty, but there's a small chance that he might not be, so I can't pass judgement until there is enough evidence to do so.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Here is humor pictures to cheer us all up:
Miceal Jackson 1:
Mikeal Jackson 2:
First of all, there is nothing funny or humorous about child molesting, molesters or something like that. Funny pictures is one thing, having those in here is like I'm telling jokes about how your dead father is being analised by earthworms.
Also, if he likes to pay tons of money to completely change his look into whatever he wants, FINE. Noone is hurt by that. Maybe he's strange, a freak, a punk and eats cornflakes without milk, all that is completely fine and irrelevant even if he is 'a molester'. The only question is: molester or not.
Third, like said before, I cannot imagine another reason why those parents let their kids 'go there', knowing about the 'rumours', then that to gain some money out of it. But this also does in no way clearify he he did something or not.
I don't see what's so wrong about sleeping in the same bed as a kid anyhow. As long as you don't touch the kid or anything, where's the harm:confused:?
You guys cant post nothin nice don't post nothin at all. im tired of you people putting me down.
Originally posted by RayJones
First of all, there is nothing funny or humorous about child molesting, molesters or something like that. Funny pictures is one thing, having those in here is like I'm telling jokes about how your dead father is being analised by earthworms.
First, I have to disagree with you. You're comment above is a clear example of a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that Kipper was saying that child molestation was funny by posting funny pictures of Michael Jackson. Nor does posting funny pictures about Michael Jackson (they were funny, btw) equate to you telling jokes about his "dead father being analised by earthworms."
Second, Michael Jackson is a freak of the celebrity world. His actions (whether they be illegal or not) are largely in public and deserve criticism, ridicule and to be poked fun at. Whether or not he actually molested children is yet to be proved, and I don't see how it can be done. But the guy is still a freak.
Third, whether or not he's guilty, isn't the news. The news is how and why the media has decided to make a circus out of the issue with so many other, deserving subjects that potentially mean far more to the American public. But in the end, we all have a choice in the matter: turn the channel; turn the page; refuse to dwell on the issue around the watercooler; and don't click on threads related to the issue (unless they include some humerous photos poking fun at the whole nonsense and the idiot masquerading as an "important" person)
I think your comment to Kipper, as I quoted above, was out of line.
But ET does have a point about the irony of your two threads, Kipper :)
Originally posted by SkinWalker
First, I have to disagree with you. You're comment above is a clear example of a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that Kipper was saying that child molestation was funny by posting funny pictures of Michael Jackson.
I did not say he said it would be funny. Actually I don't think he even thinks it is fun.
And I'm completely fine with those artworks, I'm not a fan of those, but maybe others, I just think they belong in some kind of [jacko-the-wacko -- attention 56kers! -- or something] thread.
This thread is about donkeys, a theme park, a potential molester, potential greedy parents, the media and if rich people of public interest get easy away with the almighty dollar. Potentially serious enough to get through it without funny pictures of the main person in question.
His actions (whether they be illegal or not) are largely in public and deserve criticism, ridicule and to be poked fun at.
Yes, the aspect that he is infact a 'role model' implies that he can't just do what he want - in public. On the other hand, he has the right for a (legal) private life, and it's not always his (or our) choice that we know it. It's his right to be a 'white freak'.
Nor does posting funny pictures about Michael Jackson equate to you telling jokes about his "dead father being analised by earthworms." I think your comment to Kipper, as I quoted above, was out of line.
Hm. Maybe it was a bit too much/harsh/unappropriate/personal.
I'd rephrase as follows:
If someone posts funny pictures in a thread concerning the possible commitment of a crime and how rich people can escape being charged by paying money, I'd see no clear difference if someone draws an metaphorical analogy to the analysing character of earthworms in a [somebody died :///] thread. I'd be careful with doing so.
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
You guys cant post nothin nice don't post nothin at all. im tired of you people putting me down.
I apologise if you felt kind of personal offended because of my post. I just wanted to point out that this topic (of your thread) should be treated seriously. Maybe I just should say exactly this, the potential next time. ;]
Err.. peace!
Originally posted by kipperthefrog
He could have molested other kids. He could have done a lot of things.
I have to explain my two threads.
it may sound self contradicting, but there are two things wrong about society I was poining out:
-people pay more attention to the private lives of celebs than thngs that really matter. such as our dependance on oil.
-I don't like celebs getting away with whatever they want either. When It comes to commiting crimes, that would be dangerus for society too, for they can kick us around all they want. no one is or should be above law.
does that make any sense?
Err.. peace!
sure:) peace.
But we don't know if he did anything. So... yeah.
I haven't been following the court case much, but the odd snippets i've heard seem to imply that the prosecution is doing a pretty lousy job of proving he molested anyone... i don't think the main witness came off as particularly consistent... other witnesses have mostly denied anything happening.
I have a feeling that, unless the prosecution has something big up it's sleeve, he won't be found guilty.
That said, if he was innocent he should have never settled the first case as it left an impression of guilt, and set him up for further law suits.
You would also think that, givent he earlier lawsuit, he would have been rather careful since then. Either always having reputable thrid parties around, or limiting his contact with kids entirely. (especially in the bedroom).
YOu would also think that parents would have been slightly reluctant to let kids stay at the ranch alone after the earlier allegations. Unless they were hoping to get money out of it later.
It's his right to be a 'white freak'.If it's his right to turn himself into a freak, it's everyone else's right to react however they wish, with ridicule, humour, admonishment or outrage.
Potentially serious enough to get through it without funny pictures of the main person in question.Ahh, the eternal quest of some people to edit/censor the posts of others. :D
I don't see what's so wrong about sleeping in the same bed as a kid anyhow. As long as you don't touch the kid or anything, where's the harm?Beds have sexual connotations, so there's the harm. You might as well ask "where's the harm in Jackson taking a kid on a romantic four-week luxury cruise?.." :p
As for the Michael Jackson hubbub, I'll wait till they decide if he's guilty or not. I think he's guilty, but there's a small chance that he might not be, so I can't pass judgement until there is enough evidence to do so.Uh-huh. Don't forget though that a jury deciding his guilt or innocence doesn't make him guilty or innocent. The legal system, adverserial representation in general and trial by one's "peers" are all deeply flawed as methods of dealing justice. Twelve random morons shouting "U R TEH GILTY" isn't "evidence" of anything in my view.
Beds have sexual connotations, so there's the harm. Beds have sexual connotations, so there's the harm. You might as well ask "where's the harm in Jackson taking a kid on a romantic four-week luxury cruise?.."
Sex is only one thing a bed is used for. I share my bed with my cat (my avatar, by the way) perfectly well without any "sexual connotations".
Whereas all romantic (emphasis added) cruises are about love and affection.
Spending time together at a ranch can have sexual connotations, too, but surely that alone doesn't make it wrong for Michael Jackson to invite kids there?
Originally posted by Spider AL
Beds have sexual connotations. Only if you're a perverted fool.
By that same mindset so do cars, backend stadium seats, movie theatres, and the kitchen table.
Sex is only one thing a bed is used for. I share my bed with my cat (my avatar, by the way) perfectly well without any "sexual connotations".It's YOUR CAT. If you started inviting each of the neighborhood cats to sleep with you in your bed, that would be as suspect as Jackson's behaviour is.
Whereas all romantic (emphasis added) cruises are about love and affection.Are you seriously suggesting that taking someone to bed with you has LESS sexual connotations than taking them on a romantic cruise? Frankly I consider that to be nonsense.
Spending time together at a ranch can have sexual connotations, too, but surely that alone doesn't make it wrong for Michael Jackson to invite kids there?Inviting individual kids to his ranch and sleeping with them... Yes, that's wrong.
If he'd stuck to inviting large groups of kids for afternoon tours, well that wouldn't be suspicious.
Only if you're a perverted fool.Well that's insulting.
It's also incorrect. Beds are the traditional location in which romantic relationships are consummated sexually. If you truly believe that "taking someone to bed with you" has no sexual overtones, then you're naive.
By that same mindset so do cars, backend stadium seats, movie theatres, and the kitchen table.Back seats of theatres do indeed have a history of sexual experimentation. As do the back seats of cars.
Kitchen tables on the other hand, are notable for the infrequency with which they are used for shaggage. Such locations are used by couples with UNUSUALLY adventurous sex lives. :)