View Single Post
Old 12-02-2003, 11:26 AM   #21
SpankMeCurly
 
SpankMeCurly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,677
Send a message via AIM to SpankMeCurly
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frau
Quote:
Originally Posted by PresidentOfScubaFanClub
When the boy gave his statement to the police he gave a very detailed description of Jacko's genitals. The PI said the boy included many details such as the color and even the moles. When the police investigated this and took pictures of Jacko's genitals, the boy's description checked out. So if Jacko is innocent, why is he showing his genitals to little boys?
if i can remember correctly, the boy's description of mj's peenie was incorrect. as i recall, the boy said mj's peenie was spotted because mj has vitiligo. i don't believe he has that disease, but uses it as an excuse for lightening his skin through an oral perscription. ends up the peenie was not spotted. i was under the assumption that had the description been correct mj would have been arrested. the boy or his family does not need to press charges, the state will, as it is a crime.
Actually, you are wrong again Frau. Sorry The state needed the boy's cooperation in order to press charges. It is my understanding that California has since changed their laws so that the case can be prosecuted now with our without the alleged victim's cooperation.
SpankMeCurly is offline   Reply With Quote