Guess all those fans of his, many of which are white people, many of which turned up to support him before trial and were screaming "we love you Micheal" is just an allusion.

Oh yeah, but they aren't on the jury either. Only the people who hate him are.

Speaking of making up one's mind before the trial even begins... no wonder you think he won't get a fair trial... your mind is already set against the twelve....

I'm not quite following how you get from me saying "I know he won't get a fair trial" to "making my mind up before the trial". That's a pretty good leap and even a better imagination.

------- and -------

Did I not clearly state I had not judged MJ one way or another yet?

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Did I not clearly state I had not judged MJ one way or another yet?

Dop

Yes, but you've also clearly stated that you believe he cannot get a fair trial. Is this because the jury members aren't as clear thinking as you?

Dop, I'm not trying to be a prick here, but despite the fact that several white people here on the board have said that they haven't decided that MJ is guilty, you've convinced yourself that the jury has already convicted him. Why?

Vile

This thread originally heated up between me, echo and praetorian. Both of them openly stated they think jacko is guilty. It was only later, after I took an open-minded position that the others jumped in to try and turn the issue, with me being the bad-guy racist (not you personally) with hopes of distroying the original argument and deflecting the knock-out blow that I was about to deliver.

I don't judge people -- my religion doesn't allow for judgement nor does it allow for hate. My opposing views may seem strange but that's how it is in my world.

They will find him guilty (or there will be a mis-trial) because it's highly unlikely or better yet, seriously against the percentages, that a 75% white jury will sympathize with a black (he still is black regardless of what he's done with clorox) and especially a liberal black that has been FOXED.

Dop

Dop, I have a question for you: How come you are going out of your way to protect Micheal Jackson from being labled guilty before all the facts are known but you will not extend teh same courtesy to our troops in Iraq? you call them killers and racists based on a single article from Al Jazeera. You do not even hear their side of the incident, you instantly label them evil killers. Why is that?

That is one of THE BEST QUESTIONS I've heard asked in a long time. Bravo, Trav.

The troops in Iraq have been exposed by the photos and videos -- they were caught red handed. There shouldn't be any doubt about the torture claims.

And one more time -- I did not say he is innocent -- I said he won't get a fair trial which this thread is supposed to be about.

And praetorian chimes in right on time to pat Trav on the back just like predicted in some of my posts ... who's on deck(a)?

ROTFL

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Vile

This thread originally heated up between me, echo and praetorian. Both of them openly stated they think jacko is guilty. It was only later, after I took an open-minded position that the


I never stated I think he is guilty. Look back at my postings. I have no idea if he is guilty or innocent. And I really don't care one way or the other. He is of no consequence to my life.

I did state that I would not allow my children to around him unsupervised. That is because as a parent it is my job to protect them from the posibility of danger as much as posible.

Sorry Echo -- I agree you did not explicitly say "he's guilty" but you did say ....

"The guy is definately a wackjob and quite probubly a child molester."

Not a whole lot of difference.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The troops in Iraq have been exposed by the photos and videos -- they were caught red handed. There shouldn't be any doubt about the torture claims.

And praetorian chimes in right on time to pat Trav on the back just like predicted in some of my posts ... who's on deck(a)?

ROTFL

Dop
Okay, smartass, did you NOT JUST SAY that you REFUSE to believe the media because they continually lie? Just like terror in Iraq sells papers, so does a grim outlook on Jackson's trial, and unless you want to seem like a total hypocrite, then I'd suggest you come clean on this one, and admit that it was a good fucking question.

"Quite probubly" means just that. Not "he is".

The guy is eccentric, he is more interested with children than the average adult male, has turned his home into a gigantic amusement park for children and he admits to sleeping with other peoples children and seeing nothing wrong with it. Those three things tell me that he has some sort of unusual attraction to children. Remember is is 40 something years old.

What really makes me think there might be something to this is that after the first kid accused him, and he settled out of court, he CONTINUED to have children spend the night with him.

When the courts question your behavior and you have to pay millions to keep from going to court about the behavior it is not logical or normal to continue said behavior---unless it is an addiction or drive.

He may very well be just another wackjob that is being railroaded. But he sure isn't doing anything to help his case by his statements and behavior. There is the posibilty that he is guilty and subconsciously wants to get caught.

It's kinda hard to not believe the torture photos, especially when there are tons of them, form different sources and this admin is fighting to keep them secret from the public. Not much one can say to defend these people after all that.

OTOH, show me the pics of MJ or the videos or whatever.

Until then, he should get a fair trail (which he won't get)

Dop

Good post, Echo.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It's kinda hard to not believe the torture photos, especially when there are tons of them, form different sources and this admin is fighting to keep them secret from the public. Not much one can say to defend these people after all that.

OTOH, show me the pics of MJ or the videos or whatever.

Until then, he should get a fair trail (which he won't get)

Dop

I am not talking about the torture pictures Dop, I am talking about all these posts you used to post about blood thirsty Americans shooting cars and kids and old ladies and all sorts of things where your source was some arab web site and nothing more. You did not give our troops any benefit of the doubt that perhaps they fired in self defense or take into consideration anything that may have lead to the shootings. Surely if you can think that the MJ molestation victim is lying that you can think a kid in Iraq can pick up an AK47 and point it at our troops.

i was sitting around the table with my uncle, who is very rich, and black, and some cousins. and the michael jackson thing came up. i was the only one that thought that he was innocent. and i say that now as well. i look at the parents. something is just not right. and a person that had something to hide about his pedophilia, wouldnt sit on tv and say that he lets children sleep in his bed. and mind you, with just one exception, he didnt say that he sleeps with them. the boy that is sueing him now, is the only one that michael said that he climbed in the bed with, and that was only because the boy requested it, and he only did it til the boy went to sleep ( and michael was dressed ). michael is naive, that is why he answered like he did. if he were molesting, he wouldnt have admitted the things he did. he's weird, and naive, and open to letigeous people who dont want to work for a living. he was paying that woman a living wage while her son was staying there at neverland. and he paid the boys medical expenses. when he told the mother that the money was cut off and that it was time for hewr to leave, she wouldnt. michael then contacted his lawyer to see what recourse he had . this is why this came about. how come no one is talking about the history of this woman, because character comes into play when the truth is on the line. this woman didnt want to work, and sued every department store there is....no one is talking about her seedy ass !he could have easily molested a healthy boy. i know it sounds strange, but he just put himself in a very bad and vulnerable position, and someone's taking advantage.

Originally posted by Echo2
"

he admits to sleeping with other peoples children and seeing nothing wrong with it. echo, he said that he shares his bed, and that he sleeps on the floor or a cot. see, this is how shit blows up. the only reason he climbed in the bed with this last boy, was because the boy asked him to, and mj said that the boy was so sickly, that he had to carry him to every ride. he felt sorry for him. but he didnt say that he sleeps in the same bed, he said that he shared his bed. he let the children sleep in the bed, not him eith them

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
It's kinda hard to not believe the torture photos, especially when there are tons of them, form different sources and this admin is fighting to keep them secret from the public. Not much one can say to defend these people after all that.

OTOH, show me the pics of MJ or the videos or whatever.

Until then, he should get a fair trail (which he won't get)

Dop
It's one thing to believe photos - it's another to infer that every one of our troops engage in that activity, and you certainly have alluded to that on more than one occasion.

About the Jackson case, I don't know what to believe, but Echo's post pretty much sums up the logic MOST people will use to determine his guilt or innocence. When you start hearing things like they found a copy of "Barely legal" in his room with one of the kid’s fingerprints on it, I start to question his innocence.

One doesn't get to the position mj has by being naive. He is one smart, talented and intellegent man with a lot of eccentricities. Do not underestimate him in an attempt to defend him. The man has more lawyers on retainer than he has fingers. He has access to the best legal advice there is. He is NOT naive.

Originally posted by Echo2
One doesn't get to the position mj has by being naive. He is one smart, talented and intellegent man with a lot of eccentricities. Do not underestimate him in an attempt to defend him. The man has more lawyers on retainer than he has fingers. He has access to the best legal advice there is. He is NOT naive. no, he's talented. that doesnt make him smart. and he is naive to the cruelty of the world. he's not cruel, he's weird. but it doesnt make him smart. if he were smart, he wouldnt have done that to his face....jmo

Originally posted by The Praetorian


About the Jackson case, I don't know what to believe, but Echo's post pretty much sums up the logic MOST people will use to determine his guilt or innocence. When you start hearing things like they found a copy of "Barely legal" in his room with one of the kid’s fingerprints on it, I start to question his innocence. i would be remissed if a grown man didnt have porn in his home. and a lot of them do, and if a child finds it, it makes him a child molestor ? if a child finds your gun in your home, does that make you a child killer ? every man has porn, he just hopes that his children doesnt find it......but it doesnt make you guilty...BUT BELIEVE ME, I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE THINK HE'S GUILTY ! but if all a person has to do is say that you did it, and you're guilty, this world is in trouble. kobe bryant is a good example. most people believe that he was innocent, because of what was found in the woman's panties......but he's settling out of court at his lawyers request.....not always the smartest thing in the world to do, but they listen to their lawyer

in a case like this you have to believe that the kid is lying in order to believe that jackson is innocent. many people have a hard time believing a kid would lie about something like that, while on the other hand jackson has on many occasions admitted to sleeping with boys and has been accused of molestation in the past. Not to mention the wine in a coke can thing that has been verifyed by many sources, and the fact that more then one security guard at Neverland Ranch has testifyed that there were written instructions to not allow the family of the victim to leave the ranch. You can not fault someone for thiking the guy is guilty because, the fact he is black should have nothing to do with it.

i NEVER put color in it. i dont think it applies

Originally posted by korg
i would be remissed if a grown man didnt have porn in his home. and a lot of them do, and if a child finds it, it makes him a child molestor ? if a child finds your gun in your home, does that make you a child killer ?

Well said Korg ...

I often think of the scene in 'Easy Rider' when George is going to try Marijuana for the first time and tells Captain America and Billy that it leads to harder stuff. BWAhahahahahahaahahha

Ya had to live the 60's to understand it.

Dop

Not only the Coke thing, but the bedroom approach alert. WTF is up with that? I can say that if I were on the jury, I'd presume his innocence until it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. But NOT being on the jury and being on the outside looking in, it's all too fishy to just say that he's completely innocent without having some question.

If he doesn't get a fair trial, Dop, you are saying that he will appeal or whatever based on the color of the jury? As long as his lawyers had their hands in picking the jury, he's pretty much SOL. Whats your point? MJ is paying them millions to do a bang up job if he didn't like the color of the jury, he probably should have said something. If the defense team are comfortable with the jury selection, then you shouldn't be losing too much sleep over it.

you know, a whole lot of things sound fishy to me also. but from both sides. and, until this trial, we dont know how a lot of these things came about. i just believe that the parents of both kids, have been so damn seedy. they are just as much in question as mj. but hey, a dingo did eat her baby after all

Why would he be SOL because his lawyers picked the jury.

Here's how it would go down if it was me ...

Your honor, I request a retrial based on the constitutional guarantee that I will face a jury of my peers and my lawyers, whom I have subsuquently fired, gave me bad advice when they told me it would be in my best interest to have an all-white jury.
Blah blah blah ...

Then I'd hire every famous black lawyer in the country.

Dop

The judge: MOTION DENIED. :Smacks gavel:

lmao at prae..:D

(originally by Borg)The judge would NEVER grant a mistrial. As I said, Jackson approved the jury. You can't argue a bad jury if the defense picked it. and then Lionel agreed. This makes no sense to me Dop! If my lawyers had a hand in picking the jury (relatively QUICKLY, I might add, since they had set aside weeks to pick, and it took merely days) then I cannot come back later and say - boo hoo on me! If that's the case, they'd start picking shitty juries to begin with in the hopes of declaring a mistrial or having a substantial, butt kicking "plan b" appeal.

Time will tell.

Dop

I just looked this thread over and there's so many mentions about OJ, and one would wonder, what in the hell does OJ have to do with MJ. All those greedy parents trusted their kids with Michael so why wouldn't the jury think highly of him too? The jury might think that mothers know best. At least that's the old saying, anyway. I bet the ones that want MJ to fry have a lot of hidden skeletons in their closet.