CurlTalk

CurlTalk (http://www.naturallycurly.com/curltalk/)
-   Non-hair discussion (http://www.naturallycurly.com/curltalk/non-hair-discussion/)
-   -   Anyone out there think Michael Jackson is innocent???....... (http://www.naturallycurly.com/curltalk/non-hair-discussion/1462-anyone-out-there-think-michael-jackson-innocent.html)

*zaria* 11-30-2003 05:36 PM

Anyone out there think Michael Jackson is innocent???.......
 
poll...

NetG 11-30-2003 06:15 PM

I said innocent. While I wouldn't be surprised if he's convicted, I believe too strongly in burden of proof to vote he's guilty now.

blue_skies 11-30-2003 09:44 PM

I said innocent, too. it's quite possible that those people made the story up to get $$.

I feel sorry for him. he must hate himself a great deal to have done what he did to himself appearance-wise. and I don't think he has anyone who cares enough to tell him to shape up. it seems like everyone's just using him for one thing or another.

ImSpartacus 11-30-2003 10:36 PM

There was a recent show about him and the allegations brought against him. I think it was Dateline? who interviewed a private investigator. Anyway, he was referring to the case about 10 years ago. 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?

Confused Curly 11-30-2003 11:28 PM

I agree with both scuba and blue_skies. I think he has molested a child or children before. Whether he molested this one remains to be seen. However, I feel very sorry for him for all the reasons blue_skies gave.

Tenacious D 12-01-2003 09:38 AM

14 people and counting here who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy too, I see.

NetG 12-01-2003 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenacious D
14 people and counting here who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy too, I see.

That's so unnecessary.

Try believing in innocent until proven guilty. It's a belief upon which our country was founded.

ImSpartacus 12-01-2003 12:04 PM

Ok NetG, then you have to promise to let Wacko Jacko babysit your child. The settlement can be used for therapy I suppose.

legends 12-01-2003 12:04 PM

I didn't vote because I'm still undecided. It's pretty easy for me to believe that he's guuilty. But I also think that anyone who's capable of letting their child spend so much time in the home of a relative stranger just because he's famous is capable of lying about the kid being molested so they can get some cash.

NetG 12-01-2003 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PresidentOfScubaFanClub
Ok NetG, then you have to promise to let Wacko Jacko babysit your child. The settlement can be used for therapy I suppose.

There's a big difference between convicting someone, which involves a burden of proof, and being a parent, which involves a whole lot less faith in others.


I hope you never have a loved one wrongly accused, because the "convict him, lock him up, throw away the key" attitude is what will mean they get locked up undeservedly.

I think he's most likely guilty. That doubt would make me keep any kids away from him! At the same time, I will not call him guilty until a jury does so.

Pennington 12-01-2003 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenacious D
14 people and counting here who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy too, I see.

Don't forget, they believe that Bush "stole" the 2000 election too.

ImSpartacus 12-01-2003 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetG
There's a big difference between convicting someone, which involves a burden of proof, and being a parent, which involves a whole lot less faith in others.

I think he's guilty of molesting many children. I never said he should be locked up, just that it's suspicious that this isn't the first time he's run into this situation. If he truly is innocent and never harmed a child, then what the hell is he doing showing his genitals to children? Maybe that's not physical harm, but children could do without that kind of emotional trauma. I don't care to spare his feelings and not be judgemental in this case. My instincts tell me he is nasty and should stay away from children. I wouldn't leave my children around him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NetG
I hope you never have a loved one wrongly accused, because the "convict him, lock him up, throw away the key" attitude is what will mean they get locked up undeservedly

Actually I had a member of my family accused of murder. But I feel that he had a fair trial so I did not worry about how he was perceived by the public. The case didn't become some real life version of Dostoevsky. I still have faith in the justice system and law enforcement.

mrspoppers 12-01-2003 07:44 PM

I said he's guilty because I believe he has molested children and he probably molested this one. I respect the opinion of the folks who said innocent but I personally don't agree.

As for the "innocent until proven guilty" part--yes, that's true in a court of law. It's not necessarily true on a bulletin board. Because I think he's guilty, I wouldn't be chosen for this jury...if I lived in Santa Barbara and happened to be on jury duty that week.

Bettyboop 12-01-2003 07:45 PM

If other children come out of the shadows and testify against MJ without any hope of a monetary gain, this will confirm MJ's guilt in my mind.

I think for now, I have to reserve judgment due to the credentials of the "victim" and his family.

I do wonder why McCauley(sp?) Culkin isn't speaking. Why isn't he coming out to defend Michael?

I do feel bad for Michael. Some of his so called "friends" who are going on Talk Shows are disgusting. That Rabbi and Uri Gellar - All I can say is "with friends like these..." Neither one had a problem kissing MJ's behind when the money was coming their way. Both of them at one time wrote beautiful articles about Michael's goodness.

To sum up my ramblings: I guess I can't cast my vote this week.

Confused Curly 12-01-2003 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pennington
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenacious D
14 people and counting here who still believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy too, I see.

Don't forget, they believe that Bush "stole" the 2000 election too.

Actually, the Supreme Court stole it.

DO NOT paint all people with one brush stroke. Not all of us who hate Bush believe Wacko Jacko is innocent.

PS: I also hate Hillary Clinton.

Confused Curly 12-01-2003 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bettyboop
If other children come out of the shadows and testify against MJ without any hope of a monetary gain, this will confirm MJ's guilt in my mind.

I think for now, I have to reserve judgment due to the credentials of the "victim" and his family.

I do wonder why McCauley(sp?) Culkin isn't speaking. Why isn't he coming out to defend Michael?

I do feel bad for Michael. Some of his so called "friends" who are going on Talk Shows are disgusting. That Rabbi and Uri Gellar - All I can say is "with friends like these..." Neither one had a problem kissing MJ's behind when the money was coming their way. Both of them at one time wrote beautiful articles about Michael's goodness.

To sum up my ramblings: I guess I can't cast my vote this week.

No one has questioned Germaine's (Jermaine's?) vehement defense of his brother, yet, so I will.

I understand why G/Jermaine is so angry. This is his brother, after all. I do not understand why he needs to play the race card and call this a lynching. I also want to know where the F, G/Jermaine was over the last 20 years when Michael has so obviously been crying out for help? As blue_ckies so eloquently said "I feel sorry for him. he must hate himself a great deal to have done what he did to himself appearance-wise. and I don't think he has anyone who cares enough to tell him to shape up. it seems like everyone's just using him for one thing or another." I want to know why his beloved brother and others did not intervene before?

PS: Seeing footage of Joe Jackson feeding the poor in Las Vegas made me ill. It just seemed so hypocritical!

Bettyboop 12-01-2003 11:36 PM

CurlyinCali Wrote:

Quote:

No one has questioned Germaine's (Jermaine's?) vehement defense of his brother, yet, so I will.

I understand why G/Jermaine is so angry. This is his brother, after all. I do not understand why he needs to play the race card and call this a lynching. I also want to know where the F, G/Jermaine was over the last 20 years when Michael has so obviously been crying out for help? As blue_ckies so eloquently said "I feel sorry for him. he must hate himself a great deal to have done what he did to himself appearance-wise. and I don't think he has anyone who cares enough to tell him to shape up. it seems like everyone's just using him for one thing or another." I want to know why his beloved brother and others did not intervene before? No one has questioned Germaine's (Jermaine's?) vehement defense of his brother, yet, so I will.


I wouldn't question G/Jermaine's desperate defense of MJ. Partly because it's his brother, but I also assume that MJ financially supports G/Jermaine(sp???). Without Michael supporting him, I think he'd be in trouble.

Regarding G/Jermaine playing the race card for MJ: Is it possible that Mark Garragos(sp?) provided those talking points to G/Jermaine? I say this because the "lynching visual" to me, is as silly as satan worshippers killing Laci Peterson or Winona Ryder stealing clothes to research a new movie role she was auditioning for. Mark Garagos(sp?) will dream up conspiracy theories and twist the truth to deflect from the allegations.

The people surrounding MJ are Selfish, selfish, selfish...It's sickening stuff - Since MJ was five years old, he's been looked at and treated as the "cash cow" and "pack mule" for his family and so many others.

Bettyboop 12-02-2003 10:20 AM

I wanted to add that Yes I agree that Michael Jackson is being "Lynched" by the media, but so was Robert Blake, Scott Peterson, Monica Lewinsky, etc.. It has nothing to do with his race; the allegations are very scandalous and Michael Jackson is a huge pop icon in the public eye and his image is mysterious and odd. It makes for great television (unfortunately for him), but for Jermaine to blame this on race is disingenuous.

frau 12-02-2003 11:21 AM

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.

SpankMeCurly 12-02-2003 11:24 AM

According to the dateline special, he does have discoloring on his weewee. Apparently, I was told that it's a black thing. I don't know. But according the the people they talked to on Dateline, the description was accurate. Do you really think he would give someone 30 million dollars for telling a lie ...not to mention if the discovery proved false?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com