Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?

[T_Bone]

ajlwalker wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks we are maybe being a little too hard on the parents?

They need it. They arn't the victims, the children are. The only thing enticing the parents is money. Money and nothing else. These children are left alone, without their family present, with a stranger, which wouldn't happen if it wern't for the money. I'd try to be sympathetic to the parents if I could see an angle that suggested something other than this scenario, but I don't see it.

A lot of these folks appear to be in a vulnerale state with seriously unwell kids.

Which makes the excuse that the money is in the childs best interest LESS of an issue. If my child were dying there'd be nothing more valueable than time spent with that child, I'd be less likely to give up this free time to some stranger.

The parents arn't vunerable, the children are.

I don't know, maybe there's things I don't see, but most of what's been made public about the parents of most of the children, they appear as nothing more than pimps.

Hell, one of the fathers, when learning about advances from the wierd one, demanded more money to "Continue the relationship" (his own words)

[bloodline]

redrumloa wrote:

We'll see..

BTW About the title Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?. The author of Peter Pan was a paedophile, after he died they found child porn in his possesion.

FUD!!! :-P :-D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._Barrie

[CU_AMiGA]

bloodline wrote:

redrumloa wrote:

We'll see..

BTW About the title Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?. The author of Peter Pan was a paedophile, after he died they found child porn in his possesion.

FUD!!! :-P :-D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._M._Barrie

:lol: (oh i shouldn't really laugh though :sealed: )

Seriously, i really woudn't like to think Michael was capable of doing this type of stuff. I really like is music (i am not a "Wacko Jacko" fan though). Maybe we should assign the name "Paedo-Pan" to him :-)

Regards,

[Wilse]

Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?

Pandaphile? (Keep him well away from black and white bears and goths) ;-p

Seriously, I'd rather not comment until they reach a verdict.

Wilse wrote:

Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?

Pandaphile? (Keep him well away from black and white bears and goths) ;-p

Seriously, I'd rather not comment until they reach a verdict.

May I ask why?

[Wilse]

@mdma:

May I ask why?

A few reasons, I suppose.

One is that I don't know all the details. It certainly looks fishy but I'm not entirely convinced.
Add to that a reluctance to research the details, which is based on selfish rationing of my time.
On top of all that, while paedophilia is a horrible problem, the only thing that separates this case from countless others is the fame of the suspect.

But now that I've started talking about it I might as well comment:
My guess is he's guilty. I really hope I'm wrong.

I also agree with cecilia; anyone letting their children anywhere near that guy, after all the previous accusations, is more to blame than Jackson, regardless of whether he is guilty or not.
If a father flings his kid into a pool with a hungry shark in it, he really shouldn't be surprised to see little Johnny being munched, since we know the nature of the shark.
As far as I'm concerned, these parents (the recent ones) did exactly that. Anyone who didn't know there were child-abuse allegations connected to Jackson, doesn't know who Jackson is.
If such a person even exists, get them on that jury. ;-)

[redrumloa]

Everyone here seems to be pretty sensible, I'm really amazed the news shows so many supports showing up to rally support at the courthouse. I guess there are nut bags out there, I've yet to meet anyone who believes blindly he is innocent.. This time.. But they are out there..

the only thing that separates this case from countless others is the fame of the suspect.

Agreed. If this was some backwoods carnival clown trying to lure young boys to his trailer for overnight stays things wold be 100% different. Hell a carny clown makes kids laugh, thus makes them happy. People say MJ brings joy to kids. MJ is rich and is famous. A carny clown isn't and probably smells bad. So what's the major difference? Money. The parents are pimps.

[glockspeel]

Michael Jackson - Peter Pan or Paedophile?

Paedophile.

I rest my case.

[swift240]

I am just wandering, will he get a fair trial?

Or does some one out there want there pound of flesh no matter if he is guilty or not.

I think if the press sees him as guilty then he is f****** no matter what.

Or could it be that certain parents have ideas on a big money payout?

Are certain parents manipulating the child/children to say things?

After all its America isnt it, where the Doller is the main God of there system.

Parents have been caught out in the past for manipulating there children to gain money.

So if this is the case then the parents arent worth jack S*** if all they see is the allmighty doller.

Who knows this may be the case it may not be the case.
But it has been proven in the past that it has been the case in other lay suits.  And letts not forget the fat greedy money grabing lawyers who will make this last.

Yep there big money to be made out of this......

And if MJ is NOT guilty then that dont matter as long as there is big money to be made, some one from some where will find a way to MAKE him guilty.

As for me, I just dont know...... I think he is a little odd yes but a pedo, hmmm well perhaps not.

The trouble is if you are seen to be a little odd then yes some one will make something out of it, especialy if money is to be made.

So looking at it that way, who gives a s*** for real justice.



 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[redrumloa]

@swift240

First off let me start with a:
 :roll:

Next let me ask you this. Would you let your child stay the night alone with MJ? How about in some carnival clown's trailer?

BTW the media has not seemed to lean one way or another with one exception. Heraldo Rivera has spoken out that he thinks MJ is innocent. You seem to fall into the category of he's fabulously wealthy and famous, he must be innocent.

[swift240]

OK, look, I DONT think just because he is famouse and wealthy that he MUST be inocent.

I just think that the American law system is mostly based on big bucks.  And who can gain the most out of it.

Would I let my child stay with him over night or some carnival clown?
No of course not.

But listen..... I am simply saying this and no more, when it comes to some one like him, and big bucks, then it dont matter about a fair trial does it?

A lot of people will get him no matter what, if he is not guilty or guilty that dont come into it, some one wants him sent away no matter what.

Thats why i said " will he get a fair trial"

And why wouldnt I let my child stay with him or any other... very simple......I wouldnt let any of my kids stay with any one, no matter who they are. full stop.

And if the parents let there children stay over night with him then they must have total trust in him.

As for me I wouldnt trust any one with my kids, but thats just me.

A fair trial or not, will he get it?

Just because you are a little odd in this world then does that make you guilty?

I suppose to some yes it does.

I just dont know for 100% certain if he is or not, but then thats why the legal system is put in order to find out isnt it.

And that comes down to the same question, wil he get a fair trial.

After all if a person is to be found guilty then 100% proof must be seen in order to make him guilty, as with any other person.

Or do we just say, "ohhhh f*** it he must be guilty"

[Speelgoedmannetje]

swift240 wrote:
I just dont know for 100% certain if he is or not, but then thats why the legal system is put in order to find out isnt it.

Of course, but why spending millions for avoiding legal system?

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

swift240 wrote:
I just dont know for 100% certain if he is or not, but then thats why the legal system is put in order to find out isnt it.

Of course, but why spending millions for avoiding legal system?

What do you mean?

[redrumloa]

T_Bone wrote:
What do you mean?

I think he means the child molestation case in the early 90's where MJ settled out of court with the family, for millions of dollars. The criminal case had to be dropped, because the victim withdrew due to being payed off.

[T_Bone]

redrumloa wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
What do you mean?

I think he means the child molestation case in the early 90's where MJ settled out of court with the family, for millions of dollars. The criminal case had to be dropped, because the victim withdrew due to being payed off.

Oh, yea, the "Why does he keep making millionaires out of Boyscouts" factor.
 :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

redrumloa wrote:

T_Bone wrote:
What do you mean?

I think he means the child molestation case in the early 90's where MJ settled out of court with the family, for millions of dollars. The criminal case had to be dropped, because the victim withdrew due to being payed off.

Oh, yea, the "Why does he keep making millionaires out of Boyscouts" factor.
 :lol:

:lol:
btw. Red's right..