PDA

View Full Version : Life Westboro Baptist Church will picket Michael Jackson's funeral


pr_capone
07-05-2009, 01:56 PM
This should be interesting.

Perhaps an angry horde of fans will curb stomp them and we can be done with these people.

Westboro Website (http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html)


Staples Center - Michael Wacko Jacko Jackson is in hell! 1111 S. Figueroa St WBC will be there to remind you to stop worshiping the dead. We will be there to tell you to Thank God for the death of this filthy, adulterous, idolatrous, gender-confused, nationality-confused, unthankful brute beast. We will be there to remind you that God Killed Wacko Jacko. There is a God, and a Day of Judgment. For you to wallow and murmur against God for his righteous Judgments is sin and will cause YOU to join Michael in hell. Stop that! Be thankful that God has not already killed you because like that Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar realized after 7 years of being cursed as a crazy wild man because he did not give God the glory warns - God will deal with you WHERE YOU LIVE if you do not put away your sins. Check this out: Daniel 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? Praise God, and give glory until The Most Highest for ALL his works in heaven and in earth! AMEN!

Steel Yard Baseball Stadium - You killed Michael Jackson! One Stadium Plaza WBC has been given the exclusive privilege of being the watchers and seers in this land. We are very thankful to have this privilege and share the truth with you all. Here it is: Geary, Indiana and the inhabitants are to blame for the death of this freak-show of a man. The Mayor has lied even up to this very day referring to this human, adulterer, filthy beast with a name preserved exclusively for the Lord Jesus Christ (The Prince of Peace), and will be punished by God for these words of blasphemy. You did that. You had a duty to love and help him, and that started when he was a very small lad. Whoever wrote that little television movie "The Jackson Five" knew some things about that family. The father is to blame, of course, but what about all you who knew these things were happening under that roof and kept your mouths shut so you could gossip and mock them, then smile in their faces? How about you teachers, and leaders who knew this little boy and let him wallow in his selfishness and sorrow and not one of you open your mouths and speak right words of truth? How about you Music and Hollywood movers and shakers to took and sucked every bit of life out of the little stupid?! On and on, you consumed this self-absorbed, confused, ignorant little kid! His death and blood is on all of your hands! Now you have the nerve to pretend (as you mock and scoff about him being an acquitted child molester) you loved and adored him. With friends/love like you/yours who needs enemies/hate from you. It is all the same! Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. How simple is that? How wrong are you each one for not doing this duty to Michael Jackson? I will tell you - blood guilty! Ezekiel 33:7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me. 8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Finally, be happy Jacko did not live to see the days (shortly coming) when you will all be devoured by Antichrist Obama, he's bringing your trauma, you will be eating your cute chubby little babies because you will have no jobs, no prospects, no hope, no money, no food because of the destruction of this land. AMEN!

Crush
07-05-2009, 01:58 PM
This could turn into a real slobberknocker. - J.R.

kstater
07-05-2009, 01:58 PM
I'm torn on this one.

LaChapelle
07-05-2009, 02:04 PM
I was thinking there has been too much death on CP as of late. You have proved me wrong.

DA_T_84
07-05-2009, 02:04 PM
hahahaha. I hope someone sets their church on fire. And locks them inside.

Skip Towne
07-05-2009, 02:06 PM
Meteorite?

Micjones
07-05-2009, 02:06 PM
Sadly, this is why Christianity will always be picked on.

Stewie
07-05-2009, 02:07 PM
That church sure gets alot of publicity, don't they? They must have an EXCEPTIONAL media connection.

memyselfI
07-05-2009, 02:09 PM
Well duh, they are seeking publicity and the absolute worst thing anyone can do is acknowledge their existence. They would go away or have to break laws to get publicity if people would stop giving them a platform to peddle their crap.

JuicesFlowing
07-05-2009, 02:10 PM
So I guess this church doesn't believe in free will? Not to get too deep, but God didn't strike a lightning bolt at MJ. His death was his own fault.

Frazod
07-05-2009, 02:11 PM
:popcorn:

Stewie
07-05-2009, 02:19 PM
Well duh, they are seeking publicity and the absolute worst thing anyone can do is acknowledge their existence. They would go away or have to break laws to get publicity if people would stop giving them a platform to peddle their crap.

My point exactly. Someone is giving them a national voice in the media. I would suspect someone in Topeka that works for a TV network. They have to make a living, too, no matter what it takes.

Pioli Zombie
07-05-2009, 02:25 PM
The views and opinions expressed by Westboro Moron Church in no way reflect those of Christiantity, God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. That place represents Christianity like David Berkowitz represents Judaism.
Posted via Mobile Device

CoMoChief
07-05-2009, 02:32 PM
This is pretty stupid.......but what is even more stupid is the head of state funeral and media coverage this is getting.

MJ was a child molester, a fucking weirdo to say the least. Making his kids wear masks and naming them shit names like Blanket. Who the fuck does that?

He made some great music. But in my book thats pretty much it. I could give a shit what he did for charity. All or most celebs participate in some sort of charities for nothing more than tax write-offs.

Pioli Zombie
07-05-2009, 02:36 PM
Blanket. Haha.

He was probably half in the bag.
"Hey Michael what should we name him?"
"Aggggghr...name....uh....blanket...guuuuhg.
Posted via Mobile Device

big nasty kcnut
07-05-2009, 02:37 PM
Ok what the over under on that church getting beat down.
Posted via Mobile Device

Stewie
07-05-2009, 02:38 PM
This is pretty stupid.......but what is even more stupid is the head of state funeral and media coverage this is getting.

MJ was a child molester, a ****ing weirdo to say the least. Making his kids wear masks and naming them shit names like Blanket. Who the **** does that?

He made some great music. But in my book thats pretty much it. I could give a shit what he did for charity. All or most celebs participate in some sort of charities for nothing more than tax write-offs.

Bitter much? Is your last name Phelps? MJ named none of his children Blanket, that was a nickname.

luv
07-05-2009, 02:40 PM
These people seem to want to spread a message of hate. I'm a baptist, and the actions of these people make me sick to my stomach.

Frazod
07-05-2009, 02:43 PM
My point exactly. Someone is giving them a national voice in the media. I would suspect someone in Topeka that works for a TV network. They have to make a living, too, no matter what it takes.

These idiots get media attention for the same reason PETA gets media attention - people love to hate them, and it sells.

Stewie
07-05-2009, 02:49 PM
These people seem to want to spread a message of hate. I'm a baptist, and the actions of these people make me sick to my stomach.

Don't have sex standing up, some Baptist may think you're dancing.

CoMoChief
07-05-2009, 03:05 PM
Bitter much? Is your last name Phelps? MJ named none of his children Blanket, that was a nickname.

When did I say it was OK to protest a funeral, dumbass?

I just can't believe that people are celebrating his life as if he were some great person. The guy fondled kids private parts, now tax dollars are somewhat paying for this head of state funeral with the security it's going to need etc.

Stewie
07-05-2009, 03:18 PM
When did I say it was OK to protest a funeral, dumbass?

I just can't believe that people are celebrating his life as if he were some great person. The guy fondled kids private parts, now tax dollars are somewhat paying for this head of state funeral with the security it's going to need etc.

I think the outpouring world-wide shows he was great. As for fondling kid's private parts, that was never proven. There are 100 kids who said he never did anything like the things to which he was charged. There were the kids who had parents that said he did. Big dollars had alot to do those trials and the media slammed it down your throat... He's GUILTY because we're telling you so, ...Ummmm.... break to the $100K commercial! We need our paychecks DAMMIT!

Pioli Zombie
07-05-2009, 03:23 PM
I think the outpouring world-wide shows he was great. As for fondling kid's private parts, that was never proven. There are 100 kids who said he never did anything like the things to which he was charged. There were the kids who had parents that said he did. Big dollars had alot to do those trials and the media slammed it down your throat... He's GUILTY because we're telling you so, ...Ummmm.... break to the $100K commercial! We need our paychecks DAMMIT!

You probably shouldn't use the phrase "slamming it down your throat" in a post defending Michael Jackson.
Posted via Mobile Device

pr_capone
07-05-2009, 03:25 PM
You probably shouldn't use the phrase "slamming it down your throat" in a post defending Michael Jackson.
Posted via Mobile Device

ROFLROFLROFL

Stewie
07-05-2009, 03:25 PM
You probably shouldn't use the phrase "slamming it down your throat" in a post defending Michael Jackson.
Posted via Mobile Device

I did that on purpose.

KCChiefsMan
07-05-2009, 03:31 PM
ya, this will get them the media attention that they have been whoring out for all of these years.

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 03:38 PM
hahahaha. I hope someone sets their church on fire. And locks them inside.

Not before the forced sodomy!

Otherwise; GREAT idea.

-King-
07-05-2009, 03:50 PM
When did I say it was OK to protest a funeral, dumbass?

I just can't believe that people are celebrating his life as if he were some great person. The guy fondled kids private parts, now tax dollars are somewhat paying for this head of state funeral with the security it's going to need etc.


And you know he did this how?

CoMoChief
07-05-2009, 03:59 PM
I think the outpouring world-wide shows he was great. As for fondling kid's private parts, that was never proven. There are 100 kids who said he never did anything like the things to which he was charged. There were the kids who had parents that said he did. Big dollars had alot to do those trials and the media slammed it down your throat... He's GUILTY because we're telling you so, ...Ummmm.... break to the $100K commercial! We need our paychecks DAMMIT!

That was never proven........JFC I swear some people are blind. It doesn't matter if it's 100 kids or just 1 kid, he's still a pedophile. Some of these kids were describing Wacko's cock. Gee wonder where they got those descripitons? Guess they all just made it up.

Cmon he was tried for this not once but twice. Once in 1993 and then again in 2005.

But hey......lets just blame it all on the tabloids. They're the one's responsible for all of this. ROFL

OJ was innocent to because they never proved him guilty as well.

CoMoChief
07-05-2009, 04:02 PM
And you know he did this how?

Because he was tried for it in 1993.

you can look up the trial for specifics because I dont feel like it.

MJ engaged in kissing, oral sex and masturbation acts with a 13 yr old kid.

Guru
07-05-2009, 04:14 PM
Hmmm, maybe this will finally be the straw that breaks their back. Unlikely I'm sure though.

Just Passin' By
07-05-2009, 04:20 PM
That was never proven........JFC I swear some people are blind. It doesn't matter if it's 100 kids or just 1 kid, he's still a pedophile. Some of these kids were describing Wacko's cock. Gee wonder where they got those descripitons? Guess they all just made it up.

Cmon he was tried for this not once but twice. Once in 1993 and then again in 2005.

But hey......lets just blame it all on the tabloids. They're the one's responsible for all of this. ROFL

OJ was innocent to because they never proved him guilty as well.

Hey, you're free to believe as you will, but don't act as if prosecutors and their witnesses are never willing to shade the game. The McMartins would be happy to explain how the overzealous can ruin lives.

Mr. Krab
07-05-2009, 04:40 PM
I can't believe somebody hasn't just killed these sacks of crap yet. With all the stories of people grabbing guns, and going back to work or a store, to start shooting and they miss this place?

LaChapelle
07-05-2009, 04:43 PM
It's easier to believe that lots of parents let their children stay with a know pedophile. Than a few lied about it?

BigRock
07-05-2009, 05:42 PM
Because he was tried for it in 1993.

you can look up the trial for specifics because I dont feel like it.

He was not tried in 1993. He reached a financial settlement with the accuser the night before he (Michael) was supposed to be deposed for a civil suit (meaning he'd have to swear under oath that he hadn't done anything).

Without the accuser, there was no criminal case to be brought. The only trial was in 2005.

Manila-Chief
07-05-2009, 05:43 PM
These people seem to want to spread a message of hate. I'm a baptist, and the actions of these people make me sick to my stomach.

Yeah Luv … I had to do a quick search to see if they are one of "ours." Whew!!! Sure am glad they are NOT! They are independent ... maybe because no Baptist group will have anything to do with them. They claim to be Primitive Baptist, but the Primitive Baptist group disavow the church.

The church/pastor is just plain weird. He/they evidently does/do not read/use the same Bible that we use. Seems like "the gospel according to Fred Wolf." Takes a little truth and twists it into what he wants it to be. It harms the cause of Christ!!!

Oh! I'd like to ask him ... "who made you the judge (determining what will happen to all these people)?" My Bible says that God (and God alone) is the judge.

BTW ... I'll be happy when the funeral is over. Maybe the media will find something else to talk about. But, for me it's not MJ ... it's all this type of situations. I want to hear the news and then move on. Not have a network flashing "Breaking News" a week after something happened. But, that's just me!!!

luv
07-05-2009, 05:52 PM
Yeah Luv I had to do a quick search to see if they are one of "ours." Whew!!! Sure am glad they are NOT! They are independent ... maybe because no Baptist group will have anything to do with them. They claim to be Primitive Baptist, but the Primitive Baptist group disavow the church.

The church/pastor is just plain weird. He/they evidently does/do not read/use the same Bible that we use. Seems like "the gospel according to Fred Wolf." Takes a little truth and twists it into what he wants it to be. It harms the cause of Christ!!!

Oh! I'd like to ask him ... "who made you the judge (determining what will happen to all these people)?" My Bible says that God (and God alone) is the judge.

BTW ... I'll be happy when the funeral is over. Maybe the media will find something else to talk about. But, for me it's not MJ ... it's all this type of situations. I want to hear the news and then move on. Not have a network flashing "Breaking News" a week after something happened. But, that's just me!!!

Exactly, if they are really baptists, then they do should not believe in a works based salvation. You cannot look at a person and tell them where they're going. Only God knows our hearts, and He will judge accordingly. MJ will have to answer for himself.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2009, 06:04 PM
Well duh, they are seeking publicity and the absolute worst thing anyone can do is acknowledge their existence.

I agree. I can't believe they're going to picket MJackson funeral. As if he didn't have enough controversy in his life. Let him leave this world in peace.

Manila-Chief
07-05-2009, 06:07 PM
These people seem to want to spread a message of hate. I'm a baptist, and the actions of these people make me sick to my stomach.

Exactly, if they are really baptists, then they do should not believe in a works based salvation. You cannot look at a person and tell them where they're going. Only God knows our hearts, and He will judge accordingly. MJ will have to answer for himself.

Amen sister! Preach on ... oooppps ... some Baptist don't like women preachers. :D

I'm trying to be cute but this is very good observation. When people ask me if a relative/friend went to heaven, I honestly say, "I don't know ... I don't make that decision ... only God ... He determines those things not me." Now, there are times when I have a pretty good idea, but no need to offend someone and in truth ... I (we) really don't know.

"MJ will have to answer for himself." Yes! I do not believe God killed MJ. If he had a doctor give him that powerful drug and just didn't wake up ... he did it to himself. Could God have saved MJ ... YES, but as in most cases ... He didn't. Too often, we want to blame God for something we caused ourselves ... and God just lets it happen.

Groves
07-05-2009, 06:15 PM
If you're already in the world of "picketing famous funerals with outlandish statements (that contain some truth, too)", then an MJ funeral is a must-picket. Must.

I mean, if you're out to grab headlines, why wouldn't you?

The Lord sees all they are doing as well. Don't worry.

-King-
07-05-2009, 06:19 PM
That was never proven........JFC I swear some people are blind. It doesn't matter if it's 100 kids or just 1 kid, he's still a pedophile. Some of these kids were describing Wacko's cock. Gee wonder where they got those descripitons? Guess they all just made it up.

Cmon he was tried for this not once but twice. Once in 1993 and then again in 2005.

But hey......lets just blame it all on the tabloids. They're the one's responsible for all of this. ROFL

OJ was innocent to because they never proved him guilty as well.

There was only 1 kid that described it. And seriously, how hard is it to describe a penis? I mean, what the hell? Anyone can basically describe anyone's penis.

And it's funny how he was able to settle in both of his allegations. Come on, if you are a parent and a guy molests your kid, you want him in jail right? How the **** does money make up for your kid being molested? What kind of parent thinks like that? "Um..I understand you molested my kid and scarred him for life, but since you're a star, gimme some money and we'll be on our way". Thats one reason I dont believe this stuff. No parent in their right mind would rather have that than to see the dirtbag go to jail.

Secondly, the parent was in deep deep debt. He could gain the most out of suing Michael. . The friendship became well known, as the tabloid media reported that Jackson became a member of the Chandler family unit. Under the influence of a controversial sedative administered by Evan Chandler, his son said that Jackson had touched his penis.[1] Evan Chandler was tape-recorded threatening to damage the singer's music career,[2] and engaged Jackson in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the issue with a financial settlement. Come on! Does this sound like a guy trying to gain justice, or just trying to weasel some money out of a controversial pop star? And he needed to drug his child just so he would say that Michael touched him? WTF!


In the 2005 case, he was found not guilty. Gavin insisted no molestation had occurred and that Jackson was "innocent".[8] Gavin, his sister Daveline, brother Star and mother Janet were "upfront" and said that inappropriate behavior had "absolutely not occurred" while also calling him a father figure.[8] They also insisted that they slept in Jackson's bed although Jackson himself always slept on the floor.

So they said that...and then later tried to sue him? And then they tried to get the same lawyer that had gotten the settlement in the '93 case so they could try to get money also.

Seriously, the accusers are pieces of shit and they messed up MJs legacy. All the other families(many) have said that Michael was innocent.

BigRock
07-05-2009, 06:28 PM
There was only 1 kid that described it. And seriously, how hard is it to describe a penis? I mean, what the hell? Anyone can basically describe anyone's penis.

Michael had a skin disorder. He had discolorations on both his dangle and his bag. The kid drew pictures of it.

And it's funny how he was able to settle in both of his allegations. Come on, if you are a parent and a guy molests your kid, you want him in jail right?

The same line of thinking cuts both ways. If you're a rich and powerful person who loves children, wouldn't you do anything and everything possible to clear your name? Why pay for it to go away?

Anyone who isn't familiar with the accusations should really read Maureen Orth's pieces from Vanity Fair. They've archived them here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/06/michael-jackson-is-gone-but-the-sad-facts-remain.html

If you can read all that and then say that you still don't think he did anything wrong, fair enough.

gblowfish
07-05-2009, 07:22 PM
It doesn't bother Fred that Jacko was a pedophile.
He's pissed because he was a homosexual pedophile.

I predict footage of the Phelps clan moonwalking and holding their "God Hates Fags" signs with sequined gloves....

Headline story on TMZ.

God, I hate pop culture....

StcChief
07-05-2009, 07:37 PM
I agree. I can't believe they're going to picket MJackson funeral. As if he didn't have enough controversy in his life. Let him leave this world in peace.and let God deal with child molesting A$$.

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 07:54 PM
and let God deal with child molesting A$$.

There is no god.

Bwana
07-05-2009, 08:05 PM
I didn't have much use for Jackson, but I hope a few gang members ice these ass clowns as long as they are in the area.

wild1
07-05-2009, 08:11 PM
who cares... 10 or 20 nutjobs... there are already going to be 20,000 nutjobs at this funeral...

RedNeckRaider
07-05-2009, 08:15 PM
I didn't have much use for Jackson, but I hope a few gang members ice these ass clowns as long as they are in the area.

They have done this at gay funerals and funerals for troops I will bet large coin this will cause much more outrage :shake:

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 08:17 PM
I can't believe these fools would take their Circus Act to LA; they are surely going to get wasted.

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 08:18 PM
Gang Bangers of LA, listen up: you have a new assignment.

Fritz88
07-05-2009, 08:34 PM
anyone seen the documentary about this sad family?

I feel terribly sad for their children. Some of their daughters really seemed to be doing this because they feel pressured to.

sparkky
07-05-2009, 10:14 PM
naming them shit names like Blanket. Who the **** does that?


Frank Zappa comes to mind. ROFL

this should be interesting. I'm not sure there's a loser if this happens.

kcfanintitanhell
07-05-2009, 10:21 PM
Frank Zappa comes to mind. ROFL

this should be interesting. I'm not sure there's a loser if this happens.
Nor is there a winner.

DaFace
07-05-2009, 10:23 PM
I'll be interested to see what happens when you take a bunch of idiots protesting MJ's funeral and throw them in the midst of thousands of people mourning his death. This could make for great TV.

Pioli Zombie
07-05-2009, 10:26 PM
What time? What channel? Get the popcorn.
Posted via Mobile Device

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 10:32 PM
What time? What channel? Get the popcorn.
Posted via Mobile Device

Popcorn my ass; get the fucking Champagne.

FAX
07-05-2009, 10:36 PM
If ever there was a time for an earthquake, this is it.

Who wants to bet that this Phelps guy doesn't have some pretty nasty personal habits of his own?

FAX

Groves
07-05-2009, 10:39 PM
If ever there was a time for an earthquake, this is it.

Who wants to bet that this Phelps guy doesn't have some pretty nasty personal habits of his own?

FAX


Want's to bet?

Fred doesn't have to be in a closet with Thigpen and a skeleton to accomplish this.

Is the ungracious slandering not enough? I'd call that pretty nasty and for sure personal.

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 10:40 PM
If ever there was a time for an earthquake, this is it.

Who wants to bet that this Phelps guy doesn't have some pretty nasty personal habits of his own?

FAX

I'll take the over/under on midget shit porn.

Or "barnyard lovin".

FAX
07-05-2009, 10:47 PM
Want's to bet?

Fred doesn't have to be in a closet with Thigpen and a skeleton to accomplish this.

Is the ungracious slandering not enough? I'd call that pretty nasty and for sure personal.

I'm speaking of something more ... exotic, Mr. Groves. Preferring to be bound hand and foot with big girl panty hose and having swizzle sticks jammed up his ass while wearing wax lips and a beret. Stuff like that.

FAX

Pioli Zombie
07-05-2009, 10:47 PM
I'll take the over/under on midget shit porn.

Or "barnyard lovin".

www.doodie.com
Posted via Mobile Device

Micjones
07-05-2009, 10:55 PM
That was never proven........JFC I swear some people are blind. It doesn't matter if it's 100 kids or just 1 kid, he's still a pedophile. Some of these kids were describing Wacko's cock. Gee wonder where they got those descripitons? Guess they all just made it up.

You sound awfully certain.
Let's go over what we know shall we?

Only two kids have EVER come forward.

*Evan Chandler, father and ultimate accuser in the first molestation accusation, opted for a settlement rather than justice. He was caught on tape mulling over a decision to go through with what, for all intents and purposes, was merely a well-executed extortion scheme. A scheme that subsequently lead to the beginning of the end of Jackson's career. We'll forget the fact that his son, Jordan, was under the influence of sodium amythal (see: powerful sedative) when he made his confession. A sedative administered by his FATHER. Heh...go figure. Jackson's properties were raided, but authorities were able to produce no hard evidence. AND...prosecutors were also unable to produce any corroborating witnesses. Jackson did settle, but only at the request of his attorneys and financial advisors. A lengthy trial would likely have cost him 4 or 5 times what the Chandler family received.

*In the Arvizo case...
Prosecutors were able to produce witnesses, but certainly not those with any credibility. Most of them were former employees who were involved in financial disputes with Jackson or had past criminal convictions. Arvizo's mother, Janet, had a prior welfare fraud conviction. Gavin Arvizo's testimony was shaky, his mother's courtroom behavior was anything but normal and the case ultimately fell apart (Jackson was found not guilty). There were also many Jackson associates who testified that nothing improper had taken place during their exposure to Jackson and his Neverland home. It should also be noted that Jackson was examined by world-renowned clinical psychologist Stan Katz, who said Jackson did NOT fit the profile of a pedophile.

But I suppose those two (lousy) accusations, in 16 years, are all you need to convict Jackson in the court of public opinion as an unrepentant child molester.

Bravo.

Groves
07-05-2009, 11:04 PM
I'm speaking of something more ... exotic, Mr. Groves. Preferring to be bound hand and foot with big girl panty hose and having swizzle sticks jammed up his ass while wearing wax lips and a beret. Stuff like that.

FAX


I appreciate your picking of an example on the tame end of exotic, that was kind.

It's pretty popular for it to be assumed that there are these kinds of hidden secrets that were they to be discovered would assure us all in our "I told you so" manner of thinking. I think this denigrates (by minimizing) the actual harm being done, and the facts are, there usually aren't these dark secrets anyway.

Mishandling the word of God is already enough to warrant our great displeasure. The thick slathering of good ol scoundrel-ness only completes the picture.

I need no other misbehaviors, public or private, to condemn their actions.

If you want to dream up some debauchery for them to be involved in, you are quite capable, indeed.

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 11:05 PM
Thomas Robb has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - Life Westboro Baptist Church will picket Michael Jackson's funeral - in the The Lounge forum of ChiefsPlanet.

This thread is located at:
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/<wbr>BB/showthread.php?t=209957&<wbr>goto=newpost (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=209957&goto=newpost)

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

I like the fact that good ole wholesome white folk aren't going to let that c**n get off so easy. The media acts like he was Jesus.
- Show quoted text -


See, if you Mods would throw me a chew toy like THIS asswipe once and a while, maybe I could be a little nicer to everyone else.

Just sayin'...

chasedude
07-05-2009, 11:13 PM
One day his self-obsessed ego will find himself in trouble with the wrong crowd.

Ironically It'd be great to see a Jacko fan to do it.

Groves
07-05-2009, 11:16 PM
It's already been mentioned, but this is surely to be a toxic combination.

People burn cars and raid stores after a championship? The angst will flow. It's a recipe for many deaths.

I pray not, but it could get ugly.

stumppy
07-05-2009, 11:20 PM
They have done this at gay funerals and funerals for troops I will bet large coin this will cause much more outrage :shake:


I'll bet Phelps and his cult get more media attention out of this than what they've gotten out of all of the soldiers funerals they showed up at combined.

If we're lucky the end result of Phelp's protest will be his personal addition on the list of the latest person of notoriety (for lack of a better word) to die.

Demonpenz
07-05-2009, 11:21 PM
Don't be a menece to south central while drinking jesus juice

Raised On Riots
07-05-2009, 11:23 PM
It's already been mentioned, but this is surely to be a highly combustible combination, which could possibly yield most fruitful results!

People burn cars and raid stores after a championship? The angst will flow. It's a recipe for many deaths.



FYP.:evil:

doomy3
07-06-2009, 12:09 AM
I'm speaking of something more ... exotic, Mr. Groves. Preferring to be bound hand and foot with big girl panty hose and having swizzle sticks jammed up his ass while wearing wax lips and a beret. Stuff like that.

FAX


What are the odds? That is exactly what I was thinking too.

penchief
07-06-2009, 07:39 AM
When did I say it was OK to protest a funeral, dumbass?

I just can't believe that people are celebrating his life as if he were some great person. The guy fondled kids private parts, now tax dollars are somewhat paying for this head of state funeral with the security it's going to need etc.

I'm not going to jump in here and defend Michael Jackson because I'm not a fan at all. That said, he was soooooo ****ing bizarre that I'd entertain the notion that it is entirely possible his relationship with children was not sexual. That he was a man-child himself living in some bizarro fantasy land. Which, IMO, would have made him a perfect target for the kind of things he was accused of. He very well could be guilty but he wasn't proven guilty and that makes me wonder, too.

As far as this abomination of a church goes, they create their own publicity by publicly demonstrating high profile funerals for the purpose of judging and condemning people's loved ones in order to spread their hatred.

ROYC75
07-06-2009, 07:59 AM
It has to be a very good reason for me to not defend a church......but again, WBC has done it, I don't ever recall supporting any of their movements.

And to think, I can't stand Michael Jackson. The media is busting at the bit for this guy, why can't they cover God like they do more Michael Jackson. Speaking about Idolatry ? Sheesh .... Oh never mind, the atheist / pagan world would have none of this, they are getting the type of Christianity coverage they want now from the WBC. The sad part, The WBC does not follow true Christianity.

But as one poster said, this should get interesting. I can almost sense another LA riot coming up.

RedNeckRaider
07-06-2009, 08:08 AM
You sound awfully certain.
Let's go over what we know shall we?

Only two kids have EVER come forward.

*Evan Chandler, father and ultimate accuser in the first molestation accusation, opted for a settlement rather than justice. He was caught on tape mulling over a decision to go through with what, for all intents and purposes, was merely a well-executed extortion scheme. A scheme that subsequently lead to the beginning of the end of Jackson's career. We'll forget the fact that his son, Jordan, was under the influence of sodium amythal (see: powerful sedative) when he made his confession. A sedative administered by his FATHER. Heh...go figure. Jackson's properties were raided, but authorities were able to produce no hard evidence. AND...prosecutors were also unable to produce any corroborating witnesses. Jackson did settle, but only at the request of his attorneys and financial advisors. A lengthy trial would likely have cost him 4 or 5 times what the Chandler family received.

*In the Arvizo case...
Prosecutors were able to produce witnesses, but certainly not those with any credibility. Most of them were former employees who were involved in financial disputes with Jackson or had past criminal convictions. Michael Arvizo's mother, Janet, had a prior welfare fraud conviction. Michael Arvizo's testimony was shaky, his mother's courtroom behavior was anything but normal and the case ultimately fell apart (Jackson was found not guilty). There were also many Jackson associates who testified that nothing improper had taken place during their exposure to Jackson and his Neverland home. It should also be noted that Jackson was examined by world-renowned clinical psychologist Stan Katz, who said Jackson did NOT fit the profile of a pedophile.

But I suppose those two (lousy) accusations, in 16 years, are all you need to convict Jackson in the court of public opinion as an unrepentant child molester.

Bravo.

Good to see you sticking up for a white guy :)

ROYC75
07-06-2009, 08:08 AM
If you're already in the world of "picketing famous funerals with outlandish statements (that contain some truth, too)", then an MJ funeral is a must-picket. Must.

I mean, if you're out to grab headlines, why wouldn't you?

The Lord sees all they are doing as well. Don't worry.

Your last sentence was just plain ...... stupid.

Swanman
07-06-2009, 08:17 AM
I'm torn on this one.

That makes two of us. Make no mistake, I want every member of the Phelps clan beaten savagely, but at the same time I find it curious that all of Jacko's alleged indiscretions have gone bye bye since he croaked. I acknowledge the fact that he is a music icon, but at the same time he was a weirdo that may have been a pedo.

Groves
07-06-2009, 09:30 AM
Your last sentence was just plain ...... stupid.

I guess I don't understand how it's stupid.

We all agree that Westboro is doing harm and wrong. One could be concerned that they won't get what's coming to them.

It's quite comforting to know that God doesn't miss these things, but see what they're doing. They'll be judged like everyone else, including me.....Lord help me.

Tom_A_Hawk
07-06-2009, 09:37 AM
You sound awfully certain.
Let's go over what we know shall we?

Only two kids have EVER come forward.

*Evan Chandler, father and ultimate accuser in the first molestation accusation, opted for a settlement rather than justice. He was caught on tape mulling over a decision to go through with what, for all intents and purposes, was merely a well-executed extortion scheme. A scheme that subsequently lead to the beginning of the end of Jackson's career. We'll forget the fact that his son, Jordan, was under the influence of sodium amythal (see: powerful sedative) when he made his confession. A sedative administered by his FATHER. Heh...go figure. Jackson's properties were raided, but authorities were able to produce no hard evidence. AND...prosecutors were also unable to produce any corroborating witnesses. Jackson did settle, but only at the request of his attorneys and financial advisors. A lengthy trial would likely have cost him 4 or 5 times what the Chandler family received.

*In the Arvizo case...
Prosecutors were able to produce witnesses, but certainly not those with any credibility. Most of them were former employees who were involved in financial disputes with Jackson or had past criminal convictions. Michael Arvizo's mother, Janet, had a prior welfare fraud conviction. Michael Arvizo's testimony was shaky, his mother's courtroom behavior was anything but normal and the case ultimately fell apart (Jackson was found not guilty). There were also many Jackson associates who testified that nothing improper had taken place during their exposure to Jackson and his Neverland home. It should also be noted that Jackson was examined by world-renowned clinical psychologist Stan Katz, who said Jackson did NOT fit the profile of a pedophile.

But I suppose those two (lousy) accusations, in 16 years, are all you need to convict Jackson in the court of public opinion as an unrepentant child molester.

Bravo.

You left out the part where he thought it was o.k. to share his bed with little boys.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 11:08 AM
You left out the part where he thought it was o.k. to share his bed with little boys.

I'll gladly engage you in that discussion if you'll kindly explain how such an activity is illegal.
Don't worry...I'll wait.

Dr. Katz said that Michael Jackson was basically a regressed 10-year old.
With that in mind sharing your bed with young children doesn't seem all that clandestine. It violates a social norm, but it isn't illegal. Nor can it be called the evidence that he molested his accusers.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 11:09 AM
Good to see you sticking up for a white guy :)

ROFL

RedNeckRaider
07-06-2009, 11:15 AM
ROFL

:D

Mr. Krab
07-06-2009, 11:19 AM
How funny would it be to see a bunch of pissed off Jacko fans, all dressed up like THRILLER, beating the crap out of the Phelps gang. LMAO

ClevelandBronco
07-06-2009, 11:21 AM
As a Christ believer, I'd like to throw up now.

Good grief.

gblowfish
07-06-2009, 11:24 AM
Just tell the LA Cops Fred is related to Rodney King....

King_Chief_Fan
07-06-2009, 11:44 AM
I'll gladly engage you in that discussion if you'll kindly explain how such an activity is illegal.
Don't worry...I'll wait.

Dr. Katz said that Michael Jackson was basically a regressed 10-year old.
With that in mind sharing your bed with young children doesn't seem all that clandestine. It violates a social norm, but it isn't illegal. Nor can it be called the evidence that he molested his accusers.

nice cover up by Dr. Katz

FAX
07-06-2009, 11:45 AM
Dr. Katz love him some tax free millions in a Swiss bank account.

FAX

CoMoChief
07-06-2009, 11:47 AM
The MJ death is a big conspiracy with the Obama administration, needing a side story to take over all the media while his bullshit 15,000 page bill goes through Congress.

FAX
07-06-2009, 11:58 AM
I appreciate your picking of an example on the tame end of exotic, that was kind.

It's pretty popular for it to be assumed that there are these kinds of hidden secrets that were they to be discovered would assure us all in our "I told you so" manner of thinking. I think this denigrates (by minimizing) the actual harm being done, and the facts are, there usually aren't these dark secrets anyway.

Mishandling the word of God is already enough to warrant our great displeasure. The thick slathering of good ol scoundrel-ness only completes the picture.

I need no other misbehaviors, public or private, to condemn their actions.

If you want to dream up some debauchery for them to be involved in, you are quite capable, indeed.

You are a great poster, Mr. Groves. Thoughtful and articulate. I predict great things in your future.

Meanwhile, here's my theory ... I think that a high percentage of supposed God-fearing preachers, pastors, and priests develop an interest in sexual activities for a couple of reasons; First, they spend a lot of time condemning the behavior in others which, ultimately, fosters curiosity. Secondly, they are sexually repressed and, to coin a phrase, eventually the bottle blows.

That's why I figure that ol' Fred probably likes it in the ass with a pineapple. I, therefore, predict that it's only a matter of time before some disgruntled flock member describes how he personally gruntled Fred's flocker.

FAX

LaChapelle
07-06-2009, 11:59 AM
Jacko probably spent the first few years of his life sharing a bed with siblings. He never grew up.

FAX
07-06-2009, 12:05 PM
The MJ death is a big conspiracy with the Obama administration, needing a side story to take over all the media while his bullshit 15,000 page bill goes through Congress.

Hmmm. I think you may be onto something here, Mr. CoMoChief.

Clearly, if JFK could have Marilyn killed, Obama could certainly arrange for somebody to off Jacko. The Republican Party needs to begin an investigation into this outrage. We're quickly running out of celebrities.

FAX

DeezNutz
07-06-2009, 12:13 PM
I'll gladly engage you in that discussion if you'll kindly explain how such an activity is illegal.
Don't worry...I'll wait.

Dr. Katz said that Michael Jackson was basically a regressed 10-year old.
With that in mind sharing your bed with young children doesn't seem all that clandestine. It violates a social norm, but it isn't illegal. Nor can it be called the evidence that he molested his accusers.

Do you have kids? If so, would you let them play "sleep over" at this regressed 10-year-old's house? Why or why not?

Micjones
07-06-2009, 01:09 PM
Do you have kids? If so, would you let them play "sleep over" at this regressed 10-year-old's house? Why or why not?

Yes, I have an 11-year old son.

I wouldn't allow my son to "sleep over" at your house KCF, but that hardly makes you a pedophile. It just makes me a very protective father who is unwilling to put my son in potentially dangerous situations...unnecessarily.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 01:22 PM
Does it matter to anyone that Janet Arvizo approached Larry Feldman (Jordan Chandler's attorney in the 1993 case) BEFORE going to the authorities? Does it matter to anyone that this woman was convicted of welfare fraud? Does it matter that the boy's testimony contradicted prior statements that he made to law enforcement officials? Does it matter to anyone that Gavin's mother Janet concocted a story about having been viciously beaten in 1998 by JC Penney security after being detained on suspicion of shoplifting (that INCLUDED Gavin himself)? An accusation that two years later was amended to include her "having been fondled for more than 7 minutes". Does it matter to anyone that she received a $137,000 settlement by Penney because of it?

Nah...

Facts tend to function as annoying speed bumps to misguided rants.
So people tend to just...drive around them.

gblowfish
07-06-2009, 01:23 PM
Fred is a Thriller!!

DeezNutz
07-06-2009, 01:30 PM
Yes, I have an 11-year old son.

I wouldn't allow my son to "sleep over" at your house KCF, but that hardly makes you a pedophile. It just makes me a very protective father who is unwilling to put my son in potentially dangerous situations...unnecessarily.

KCF?

Of course, you, like other sane person, would use some common sense. It's a situation that, at best, is disconcerting, but, most likely, is more troubling than this.

Chiefnj2
07-06-2009, 01:40 PM
Based on what I've read, as long as Michael was paying the bills the Chandler family didn't make any accusations. Once the money stopped the trouble began.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 01:41 PM
KCF?

Sorry, I was in the middle of multi-quoting a response and got confused.

Of course, you, like other sane person, would use some common sense. It's a situation that, at best, is disconcerting, but, most likely, is more troubling than this.

I just find it disheartening that people have convicted him in the court of public opinion despite the man-sized holes in the two prior accusations.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 01:41 PM
Based on what I've read, as long as Michael was paying the bills the Chandler family didn't make any accusations. Once the money stopped the trouble began.

The EXACT same situation occurred with the Arvizo family.
Mike was footing medical bills for Gavin.

DeezNutz
07-06-2009, 01:42 PM
Does it matter to anyone that Janet Arvizo approached Larry Feldman (Jordan Chandler's attorney in the 1993 case) BEFORE going to the authorities? Does it matter to anyone that this woman was convicted of welfare fraud? Does it matter that the boy's testimony contradicted prior statements that he made to law enforcement officials? Does it matter to anyone that Gavin's mother Janet concocted a story about having been viciously beaten in 1998 by JC Penney security after being detained on suspicion of shoplifting (that INCLUDED Gavin himself)? An accusation that two years later included her "having been fondled for more than 7 minutes". Does it matter to anyone that she received a $137,000 settlement by Penney because of it?

Nah...

Facts tend to function as annoying speed bumps to misguided rants.
So people tend to just...drive around them.

I always thought the mic part of your username stood for something else. Good to know you're ok, MJ. :)

DeezNutz
07-06-2009, 01:43 PM
Sorry, I was in the middle of multi-quoting a response and got confused.



I just find it disheartening that people have convicted him in the court of public opinion despite the man-sized holes in the two prior accusations.

ROFL

Interesting phrase, given the subject matter.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 01:44 PM
ROFL

Interesting phrase, given the subject matter.

ROFL

RJ
07-06-2009, 01:55 PM
I'm speaking of something more ... exotic, Mr. Groves. Preferring to be bound hand and foot with big girl panty hose and having swizzle sticks jammed up his ass while wearing wax lips and a beret. Stuff like that.

FAX


That's not normal?

I mean, I'm just askin'.

Is it the wax lips?

BigRock
07-06-2009, 06:16 PM
Facts tend to function as annoying speed bumps to misguided rants. So people tend to just...drive around them.

So are you denying that there's numerous facts to support the notion that Michael Jackson was molesting boys? Or are you just driving around those annoying speed bumps?

DaFace
07-06-2009, 06:26 PM
I just find it disheartening that people have convicted him in the court of public opinion despite the man-sized holes in the two prior accusations.

This case is of course much more visible than most, but I'd imagine that the phenomenon is true of nearly all accused sex offenders. It's such a strong societal taboo that even being accused of it is enough to sway most opinions toward the negative.

Chiefnj2
07-06-2009, 06:35 PM
So are you denying that there's numerous facts to support the notion that Michael Jackson was molesting boys? Or are you just driving around those annoying speed bumps?

What are the numerous facts supporting the notion he was guilty?

Micjones
07-06-2009, 06:40 PM
So are you denying that there's numerous facts to support the notion that Michael Jackson was molesting boys? Or are you just driving around those annoying speed bumps?

Are you waiting for someone else to present those facts or were you just bluffing?

Micjones
07-06-2009, 06:48 PM
This case is of course much more visible than most, but I'd imagine that the phenomenon is true of nearly all accused sex offenders. It's such a strong societal taboo that even being accused of it is enough to sway most opinions toward the negative.

Exactly.
And it's shameful.
He was an easy target because of how regressed he was as an adult.
He had no real sense of reality.

If he was guilty of anything...
It was of violating social norms that say sharing your bed with a child not your own is wrong.

BigRock
07-06-2009, 07:50 PM
Are you waiting for someone else to present those facts or were you just bluffing?

Neither.

Navigate these speed bumps:

- As mentioned already in this thread (and ignored), the first accuser accurately drew pictures of Michael's private regions, identifying discolored marks on his penis, testicles, and buttocks. These were drawn prior to the police taking pictures of Jackson.

- Michael's lawyers did everything possible to delay his deposition in the civil case brought by the first accuser. The night before he was finally supposed to go under oath on the matter, knowing that -- among other things -- he'd be asked about the accurate pictures the boy drew, Michael decided to settle and pay them off.

- The woman who worked at Neverland ranch and made the arrangements with families to bring their children there -- someone the cops wanted to talk to, needless to say -- abruptly left the country the night before she was supposed to be questioned about the situation with the first accuser.

Years later, Michael was still sending her money in Greece, where she'd fled to.

- Likewise, the guy who ran security at Neverland ranch during that period of time continues to get large yearly payments.

- During a suit brought against him by former bodyguards, Michael was asked about child molestation and plead the fifth.

- Depsite all the talk about Michael letting "children" sleep in his bed, the authorities conducted two different investigations a decade apart, talked to hundreds of people, and never found a single person with knowledge of girls sleeping in Michael's bed. It was always little boys.

In fact, many of the boys Michael took "special interest" in over the years, including three of the boys who accused him, all had the same physical characteristics.

Not only that, most of them came from the same family circumstances, where the parents were divorced, the father was absent, and the mother was in a financial position where she'd respond well to being lavished by gifts.

Probably all a coincidence.

- Following up on the previous item, there are, in fact, more than two boys who have come forward to say Jackson molested them. One was the son of Michael's former maid, who Jackson paid off for her silence. Now an adult, he testified during the criminal trial. The other boy's parents refused to let him testify.

- The first accuser has not spoken to his mother in 15 years because he blames her for turning a blind eye and allowing Jackson to prey on him. Seems odd that he'd shut out his mother if they were all just making it up for money.

For that matter, the entire family ended up a broken mess, despite their enormous financial windfall.

- Lots of pornographic material, including a popular book among pedophiles of naked young boys, was removed from Neverland. The police found six other books either featuring naked young boys or featuring naked men engaged in explicit sex acts. There was also a picture of a naked boy found in Michael's bedroom.

- The "second" accuser (from the criminal trial) said that Michael had shown him dirty magazines. Among the pornography removed from Neverland were dirty magazines with both Michael and the boy's fingerprints on them.

- Michael's legal team, which was fiercely protective and went after numerous people for libel and slander (perhaps most notably the author of a book that detailed Michael's relationship with the first accuser) never once brought any action against Vanity Fair for their series of articles about Jackson, where each of these facts I've mentioned have been cited.

In other words, they don't dispute any of this.

Should I keep going?

DeezNutz
07-06-2009, 07:52 PM
If he was guilty of anything...
It was of violating social norms that say sharing your bed with a child not your own is wrong.

And molesting young boys.

Pioli Zombie
07-06-2009, 09:53 PM
And molesting young boys.

He was an artistic homosexual pedophile.
Posted via Mobile Device

Pioli Zombie
07-06-2009, 10:00 PM
What did Steve McNairs quest for a championship have in common with one of Michael Jacksons lovers?

3 feet short.
Posted via Mobile Device

Deberg_1990
07-06-2009, 10:14 PM
If he was guilty of anything...
It was of violating social norms that say sharing your bed with a child not your own is wrong.

Not sure if you have kids Mic.....but would you have let your kids share a bed with MJ?
Or any other grown man for that matter??

Pioli Zombie
07-06-2009, 10:21 PM
Not sure if you have kids Mic.....but would you have let your kids share a bed with MJ?
Or any other grown man for that matter??

Makes perfect sense to me. Go along son, stay over at Neverland. Share a bed with a whacked out adult celebrity who purposely disfigures his face and is obviously sexually confused from his being abused as a child.
Yeah, sure, go ahead Junior.
Posted via Mobile Device

Groves
07-06-2009, 10:39 PM
with a pineapple.

Interesting theories, Mr. FAX. Probably two pineapples.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 10:42 PM
Neither.

- As mentioned already in this thread (and ignored), the first accuser accurately drew pictures of Michael's private regions, identifying discolored marks on his penis, testicles, and buttocks. These were drawn prior to the police taking pictures of Jackson.

Jordan Chandler's description of Jackson's genitalia was found to be inconsistent by the officials who conducted the strip search. Remember... Chandler claimed that Jackson was circumcised. Officials later determined that he was not.

- Michael's lawyers did everything possible to delay his deposition in the civil case brought by the first accuser. The night before he was finally supposed to go under oath on the matter, knowing that -- among other things -- he'd be asked about the accurate pictures the boy drew, Michael decided to settle and pay them off.

After having submitted to the search of his own volition?
I'm failing to understand the logic in agreeing to the search and later fearing the consequences...settling.

- The woman who worked at Neverland ranch and made the arrangements with families to bring their children there -- someone the cops wanted to talk to, needless to say -- abruptly left the country the night before she was supposed to be questioned about the situation with the first accuser.

Years later, Michael was still sending her money in Greece, where she'd fled to.

- Likewise, the guy who ran security at Neverland ranch during that period of time continues to get large yearly payments.

- During a suit brought against him by former bodyguards, Michael was asked about child molestation and plead the fifth.

- Depsite all the talk about Michael letting "children" sleep in his bed, the authorities conducted two different investigations a decade apart, talked to hundreds of people, and never found a single person with knowledge of girls sleeping in Michael's bed. It was always little boys.

In fact, many of the boys Michael took "special interest" in over the years, including three of the boys who accused him, all had the same physical characteristics.

Not only that, most of them came from the same family circumstances, where the parents were divorced, the father was absent, and the mother was in a financial position where she'd respond well to being lavished by gifts.

Probably all a coincidence.

- Following up on the previous item, there are, in fact, more than two boys who have come forward to say Jackson molested them. One was the son of Michael's former maid, who Jackson paid off for her silence. Now an adult, he testified during the criminal trial. The other boy's parents refused to let him testify.

- The first accuser has not spoken to his mother in 15 years because he blames her for turning a blind eye and allowing Jackson to prey on him. Seems odd that he'd shut out his mother if they were all just making it up for money.

For that matter, the entire family ended up a broken mess, despite their enormous financial windfall.

- Lots of pornographic material, including a popular book among pedophiles of naked young boys, was removed from Neverland. The police found six other books either featuring naked young boys or featuring naked men engaged in explicit sex acts. There was also a picture of a naked boy found in Michael's bedroom.

- The "second" accuser (from the criminal trial) said that Michael had shown him dirty magazines. Among the pornography removed from Neverland were dirty magazines with both Michael and the boy's fingerprints on them.

- Michael's legal team, which was fiercely protective and went after numerous people for libel and slander (perhaps most notably the author of a book that detailed Michael's relationship with the first accuser) never once brought any action against Vanity Fair for their series of articles about Jackson, where each of these facts I've mentioned have been cited.

In other words, they don't dispute any of this.

Should I keep going?

I'm sorry, but I can't take any of this conjecture seriously.
The Maureen Orth article in Vanity Fair can't be called empirical.
Much of it is strictly speculative information she received from former Jackson employees or from the Chandler and Arvizo camps. She conveniently glossed over Janet Arvizo's checkered past. That strikes me as quite a bit disingenuous.

To draw the conclusion that Jordan Chandler's estrangment from his birth mother had nothing at all to do with her having initially dismissed her son's accusations, the father being ordered to stay away from the family for an extended period of time, and their subsequent divorce...well...also disingenuous.

Again, Jordan Chandler declined to cooperate with authorities following the settlement citing fear of retaliation from Jackson and his cronies. A spokesperson with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office was unable to substantiate such a claim. Orth would argue though as her "source" with the Prosecution was certain they were in imminent danger. Oddly neither the police or the Grand Jury were willing to bring charges either. So much for all of the evidence. After interviewing over 200 witnesses the Grand Jury was unable to find anyone to corroborate the Jackson story.

I'm sorry sir, but Vanity Fair conjecture is not an answer to my initial post bubbling over with facts.

Maureen Orth is the SAME woman that went onto "The Today Show" and "Hardball" less than 24 hours after the story broke that Jackson had passed. She recounted the VERY same innuendo and rumors that've been regurgitated over the last 16 years.

The SAME woman who went to great lengths to throw in another unsubstantiated rumor about Jackson during her interview with Matt Lauer on TTS AFTER he tried to wrap up the interview.

This is the SAME woman who obtained and divulged private medical information from Jackson's doctor.

The SAME woman who said that Jackson might've "staged" this incident for publicity reasons.

The SAME woman who said that Jackson would've wanted to "go" this way because of the publicity it would've generated.

The SAME woman who said (and I quote), "I think this ending is great for Michael."

The SAME woman who fancies herself an authority on Jackson despite never having known the man personally.

This woman has been seething over Jackson for YEARS and obviously has an axe to grind.
She doesn't help your argument.

Micjones
07-06-2009, 11:14 PM
Not sure if you have kids Mic.....but would you have let your kids share a bed with MJ?
Or any other grown man for that matter??

I have an 11-year old son Deberg.
And again, I wouldn't allow him to share a bed with you.
That hardly makes you a pedophile though.
It just makes me a concerned father who wouldn't allow something so potentially compromising to take place.

Raised On Riots
07-06-2009, 11:19 PM
I have an 11-year old son Deberg.
And again, I wouldn't allow him to share a bed with you.
That hardly makes you a pedophile though.
It just makes me a concerned father who wouldn't allow something so potentially compromising to take place.

How much for the women? The LITTLE GIRLS!!!

http://lh4.ggpht.com/jloughli/R8INQ8WaxYI/AAAAAAAAACw/28fKIo5PLYo/BluesBrothers.jpg

Chaunceythe3rd
07-06-2009, 11:52 PM
Do you know that there still are people who believe that OJ was innocent of the murders of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman and that he was railroaded when found guilty of the Las Vegas kidnapping and robbery of the people in the hotel room? I guarantee you that the next story of a 30+ year old man, celebrity or not, sleeping with pre-teens or adolescents will bring out the defenders of such actions. The defenders will use Michael Jackson as an example of a fine person who did exactly the same thing and that no harm ever came from the man-boy relationships.

Many times, defenders of those who engage in illegal, criminal or immoral behavior are those who have a problem dealing with authority figures or behaving in a conventional manner themselves. They grab any situation short of absolute visual evidence or a confession as a means to demonstrate that, yet again, the "authorities" are trampling on the rights of the accused.

Not saying that these defenders are good or bad, just curious.

Raised On Riots
07-07-2009, 12:06 AM
Do you know that there still are people who believe that OJ was innocent of the murders of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman and that he was railroaded when found guilty of the Las Vegas kidnapping and robbery of the people in the hotel room?

I'm sure there are, but I'm also sure they are few and far in between.


Many times, defenders of those who engage in illegal, criminal or immoral behavior are those who have a problem dealing with authority figures or behaving in a conventional manner themselves.

Your ability to state the obvious is matched only by my indifference to your personal moral code.

They grab any situation short of absolute visual evidence or a confession as a means to demonstrate that, yet again, the "authorities" are trampling on the rights of the accused.


Hi! My name is US Justice System! Have we met before?!

BigRock
07-07-2009, 12:21 AM
Jordan Chandler's description of Jackson's genitalia was found to be inconsistent by the officials who conducted the strip search. Remember... Chandler claimed that Jackson was circumcised. Officials later determined that he was not.

Did you also know that when Michael paid them off, it was handled by his insurance company, it never cost him a dime, and they paid off the accusers against Michael's wishes?

That's not true, of course, but that story is right out of the same "facts used to defend Michael Jackson" playbook as the circumcision, sodium amytal, and "Dr. Katz said Jackson didn't fit the profile" stuff.

Do you have a verifying statement from these "officials" to support the circumcision story? Or are you just going from the credibility-straining story from Michael's biographer, who fully believes Michael to be innocent?

Also, before I forget, the DA has stated on the record that the sodium amytal story is bullshit, and Dr. Katz -- "world-renowned clinical psychologist" in your words -- examined the accuser from the criminal trial (and his brother) and believed the accuser had been abused.

So, yeah, a lot of that stuff doesn't really fly.

After having submitted to the search of his own volition? I'm failing to understand the logic in agreeing to the search and later fearing the consequences...settling.

If by "agreeing to the search", you mean "forced by a search warrant" and "fought tooth and nail against it, including having to be physically restrained (and striking a doctor) and at one point outright refusing to comply", then yes, I suppose he agreed willingly.

All of this, referring to his anger and behavior, was sworn to in numerous affidavits by the people there. Oddly, though, it wasn't quite described that way by Jackson's biographer in the "circumcision" story.

As for the logic, perhaps this flowchart will help:

Boy draws pictures of Michael's junk --> cops get search warrant to take pictures of Michael's junk --> Michael fights and refuses but ultimately photos are taken --> Michael agrees to pay settlement.

I'm sorry, but I can't take any of this conjecture seriously.

I must say, there is some degree of irony in the fact that you have a problem with the Vanity Fair material -- none of which was ever challenged by the Jackson camp -- while freely citing whatever dubious "JACKO DIDN'T DO IT" nuggets you can get your hands on.

Just for the record, though...

- that the woman from Neverland fled the country the night before she was to be questioned

- that no one has come forward with knowledge of young girls sleeping in Michael's bed

- that Michael plead the 5th during a deposition when asked about child molestation

- that there were common physical and social characterictics between the boys Michael was most attached to

- that there were more than 2 accusers

- that graphic pornographic material, including stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house (from his bedroom, in fact, which was such a haven for the world's children)

- and that Michael and an accuser's fingerprints were found on a porn magazine

...are all verificable facts and hardly "conjecture" from a magazine article. You can attack the magazine or the author all you like, but the magazine columns are simply a handly archive of the information.

I'm sure a site like The Smoking Gun has many of the legal documents in support of those facts, if you ever feel like taking your head out of the sand.

my initial post bubbling over with facts.

It was certainly bubbling over with something.

Duck Dog
07-07-2009, 08:21 AM
Ya know, there's a good chance the Phelch clan will be mauled by an angry crowd. It's win win.

Chiefnj2
07-07-2009, 08:59 AM
"that graphic pornographic material, including stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house (from his bedroom, in fact, which was such a haven for the world's children)

- and that Michael and an accuser's fingerprints were found on a porn magazine"

If investigators found child porn material at Michael's house, why wasn't he ever charged with criminal counts of possessing child porn?

Deberg_1990
07-07-2009, 09:05 AM
I have an 11-year old son Deberg.
And again, I wouldn't allow him to share a bed with you.
That hardly makes you a pedophile though.
It just makes me a concerned father who wouldn't allow something so potentially compromising to take place.

Just trying to see where you were coming from with that last statement.


This:


"If he was guilty of anything...
It was of violating social norms that say sharing your bed with a child not your own is wrong"


Made it sound as if you didnt have a problem with him sharing a bed with a young child.

RedNeckRaider
07-07-2009, 10:01 AM
"that graphic pornographic material, including stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house (from his bedroom, in fact, which was such a haven for the world's children)

- and that Michael and an accuser's fingerprints were found on a porn magazine"

If investigators found child porn material at Michael's house, why wasn't he ever charged with criminal counts of possessing child porn?

You can read about it here. I glanced through it but have little interest. I think he was a talented yet twisted freak show. I have no proof that he molested kids but there is plenty of evidence out there pointing that he did. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...........

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jackson2.html

Micjones
07-07-2009, 10:02 AM
That's not true, of course, but that story is right out of the same "facts used to defend Michael Jackson" playbook as the circumcision, sodium amytal, and "Dr. Katz said Jackson didn't fit the profile" stuff. Do you have a verifying statement from these "officials" to support the circumcision story? Or are you just going from the credibility-straining story from Michael's biographer, who fully believes Michael to be innocent?

Weren't you sold on the credibility-straining article from Maureen Orth (who never knew Jackson personally), who fully believes Michael to be guilty?

Mind you, the biographer Taraborrelli has said on the record that he did not know if Jackson had molested Chandler or not. This is the SAME biographer who was critical of Michael's choices in life on a number of occasions both personally and in print. I think that dispatches this idea that the biography was merely fluff and that Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz, the sodium amytal, and the strip search were untrue.

But, if you'd like... We can throw it all out.
And what we'd be left with... Wouldn't look favorable to your argument.

I must say, there is some degree of irony in the fact that you have a problem with the Vanity Fair material -- none of which was ever challenged by the Jackson camp -- while freely citing whatever dubious "JACKO DIDN'T DO IT" nuggets you can get your hands on.

The Vanity Fair article wasn't empirical. Why on Earth would a defense attorney with two wits about him try to disprove conjecture that has no bearing on the case?

Just for the record, though...

- that the woman from Neverland fled the country the night before she was to be questioned

- that no one has come forward with knowledge of young girls sleeping in Michael's bed

- that Michael plead the 5th during a deposition when asked about child molestation

- that there were common physical and social characterictics between the boys Michael was most attached to

- that there were more than 2 accusers

- that graphic pornographic material, including stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house (from his bedroom, in fact, which was such a haven for the world's children)

- and that Michael and an accuser's fingerprints were found on a porn magazine

...are all verificable facts and hardly "conjecture" from a magazine article. You can attack the magazine or the author all you like, but the magazine columns are simply a handly archive of the information.

I'm sure a site like The Smoking Gun has many of the legal documents in support of those facts, if you ever feel like taking your head out of the sand.

You mean the same TSG article that says, "If the harrowing and deeply disturbing allegations in these documents are true..."

More conjecture from "sources" that made the information available to TSG second-hand. Bravo sir.

Frazod
07-07-2009, 10:06 AM
You can read about it here. I glanced through it but have little interest. I think he was a talented yet twisted freak show. I have no proof that he molested kids but there is plenty of evidence out there pointing that he did. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...........

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jackson2.html

The other thing to consider is how many people were intimidated into silence by his goons or quietly paid off before anything broke in the press? Obviously nothing can be proven now, but if Jackson (or his people) would sic goons on one guy to shut him up, I find it difficult to believe that tactic wasn't a common problem solver.

Micjones
07-07-2009, 10:41 AM
Made it sound as if you didnt have a problem with him sharing a bed with a young child.

I might be radical Deberg, but I'm not crazy.

BigRock
07-07-2009, 03:55 PM
Weren't you sold on the credibility-straining article from Maureen Orth (who never knew Jackson personally), who fully believes Michael to be guilty?

Should I again bring up the fact that Michael's lawyers, who often went after people that made certain claims, never once challenged anything printed in the Vanity Fair columns?

But it doesn't matter. As I said before, we can throw out any subjective material from the Vanity Fair columns and just focus on the facts archived within them. You're the one who was so big on people ignoring facts, remember?

Clearly, though, you have no interest in any facts that don't support your side of the story.

Mind you, the biographer Taraborrelli has said on the record that he did not know if Jackson had molested Chandler or not.

Assuming you're correct -- which, let's be honest, has been rare here -- is that supposed to overule him saying he believes Michael is innocent?

This is the SAME biographer who was critical of Michael's choices in life on a number of occasions both personally and in print. I think that dispatches this idea that the biography was merely fluff

Oh, OK. Because the biographer was critical of some of Michael's life choices, it doesn't really matter that his book is the ONLY place you'll find references to two major items suggesting Michael's innocence.

I see.

:rolleyes:

Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz

Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz are irrelevant. As I've already mentioned, Katz had sessions with both the accuser from the criminal trial and his brother, and he believed they were telling the truth. Katz, as he's required to do, contacted Child Protective Services because he believed the boy had been molested.

This is not speculation. This is not conjecture. This is a matter of public record. Of course, it's not a detail you'll find on Wikipedia, so I can understand how this might be new information to you.

This doctor, who you yourself held up as a grand expert, believed the accuser when he said he'd been abused by Michael Jackson.

Does that not give you pause?

the sodium amytal, and the strip search

Two claims that you'll only find in one specific book, at least one of which has been specifically refuted on the record by the LA District Attorney. Yet you freely accept both claims as the gospel truth.

Again, I point out how odd it is that you're so willing to believe any little nugget that suggests Michael's innocence, while you put on your tap shoes and shuffle around actual documented facts supporting his guilt.

You mean the same TSG article that says, "If the harrowing and deeply disturbing allegations in these documents are true..."

I'm sorry, do you not understand the difference between facts and allegations?

- It is a FACT that more than two boys accused Michael Jackson. A third accuser testified at Jackson's criminal trial.

- It is a FACT that tons of porn was removed from Neverland. You can see the search warrant article at The Smoking Gun, to say nothing of the evidence introduced at trial.

- It is a FACT that they found fingerprints from Michael, an accuser, and the accuser's brother on dirty magazines taken from Michael's bedroom.

- It is a FACT that Michael plead the fifth on the subject of child molestation.

And so on and so on down the list I made earlier. These aren't "allegations". Do you see the difference?

Just be honest: you have no interest in honestly discussing anything here. You're all about discussing the facts until ones come up that don't fit your position, and then you're as guilty of driving around those speed bumps as anyone, if not moreso.

Your entire argument boils down to this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/36sKMwbwfWc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/36sKMwbwfWc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BigRock
07-07-2009, 03:57 PM
"that graphic pornographic material, including stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house (from his bedroom, in fact, which was such a haven for the world's children)

- and that Michael and an accuser's fingerprints were found on a porn magazine"

If investigators found child porn material at Michael's house, why wasn't he ever charged with criminal counts of possessing child porn?

The material with young boys wasn't explicit pornography. That's bad wording on my part.

I should have said "graphic pornographic material, plus stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house".

Micjones
07-07-2009, 05:04 PM
Should I again bring up the fact that Michael's lawyers, who often went after people that made certain claims, never once challenged anything printed in the Vanity Fair columns?

I suppose if you'd rather do that than answer my original question. What purpose would it serve to pursue Vanity Fair in court when the article had absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, on the case?

But it doesn't matter. As I said before, we can throw out any subjective material from the Vanity Fair columns and just focus on the facts archived within them. You're the one who was so big on people ignoring facts, remember?

Convenient. Let's pick and choose what information from Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth, who has consistently vilified Jackson over the years, and adopt her alleged sources and their subsequent information as truth. We'll just gloss over the fact that her representation of the facts is spotty at best and tend to contradict agencies like...the Los Angeles District Attorney's office.

Oh, OK. Because the biographer was critical of some of Michael's life choices, it doesn't really matter that his book is the ONLY place you'll find references to two major items suggesting Michael's innocence.

I'll explain, slowly, so you'll understand.
The fact that Taraborrelli's been critical of Jackson both personally and in print dispatches the idea that he CANNOT be objective as it relates to Jackson and his circumstances.

Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz are irrelevant.

But the Maureen Orth piece is gospel? Gotcha.

This doctor, who you yourself held up as a grand expert, believed the accuser when he said he'd been abused by Michael Jackson.

Does that not give you pause?

Are we talking about the Chandler case or the Arvizo case?

In the Arvizo case...the same doctor, himself, characterized his examination of Gavin Arvizo as cursory. He went on to say that he was NOT asked to do an in-depth evaluation of the boy.

Two claims that you'll only find in one specific book, at least one of which has been specifically refuted on the record by the LA District Attorney. Yet you freely accept both claims as the gospel truth.

Care to provide a link for that?

Again, I point out how odd it is that you're so willing to believe any little nugget that suggests Michael's innocence, while you put on your tap shoes and shuffle around actual documented facts supporting his guilt.

Where are these facts documented aside from Vanity Fair and The Smoking Gun piece that you alluded to previously?

I'm sorry, do you not understand the difference between facts and allegations?

- It is a FACT that more than two boys accused Michael Jackson. A third accuser testified at Jackson's criminal trial.

You mean Jason Francia (Jackson's first accuser)? The SAME Jason Francia who told the investigators who approached him that he had only been tickled?
The SAME Jason Francia who later leveled molestation charges on Jackson? The SAME Jason Francia whose mother, former employee of Jackson's, received $20K for a "Hard Copy" interview?

It is a FACT that tons of porn was removed from Neverland. You can see the search warrant article at The Smoking Gun, to say nothing of the evidence introduced at trial.

It's also a fact that the lead investigator, Robel, said the materials were LEGAL.

- It is a FACT that they found fingerprints from Michael, an accuser, and the accuser's brother on dirty magazines taken from Michael's bedroom.

It's also a fact that the magazines weren't examined until AFTER the boy's Grand Jury testimony where he handled the documents in question.

Just be honest: you have no interest in honestly discussing anything here. You're all about discussing the facts until ones come up that don't fit your position, and then you're as guilty of driving around those speed bumps as anyone, if not moreso.

You're right. And there's good reason why you've repeatedly danced around the holes in the Arvizo case.

Yeah. All of that information I provided is insignificant.
But if Vanity Fair or TSG printed it...by God...it's gotta be true!

BigRock
07-07-2009, 09:08 PM
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2346/ianmcshaneohgod.jpg

I suppose if you'd rather do that than answer my original question. What purpose would it serve to pursue Vanity Fair in court when the article had absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, on the case?

Is this a serious question?

What purpose did it serve for Jackson's legal team to pursue ANY of the numerous people they did for libel and slander? They went after Diane Diamond and Hard Copy. They went after TV and radio stations. They went after authors.

They've also made suits for things completely unrelated to the child molestation accusations. They've sued tabloids for any number of things, like stories about Michael's plastic surgery.

They had a noted history of lashing out against stories or coverage unfavorable to Michael. The "purpose" would seemingly be to set the record straight and to correct what they thought (or wanted people to think) was false information and/or lies about Michael.

But despite that impressive work load, at no time did they ever bring a legal challenge against Maureen Orth or Vanity Fair. Kind of interesting, wouldn't you say?

Convenient. Let's pick and choose what information from Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2804/johnmalcovichstupid.jpg

Do I really have to go over this again?

Try to follow along: there are things called ALLEGATIONS. Right? Still with me? And there are things called FACTS. Are we good? Do you need to lie down and digest all this?

There are ALLEGATIONS in the Vanity Fair articles. Things that have only appeared from Maureen Orth's reporting. Things that some independent person cannot prove without having access to her notes or sources.

Then there are FACTS in the articles. Things that are common knowledge. Things that are a matter of record. Things that can be verified.

For example, that Michael had a bunch of porn in his bedroom at Neverland -- a place he referred to as a safe, sweet place for children -- is a FACT. It is not an allegation. It can, and has, been proven to be true. There are numerous documents, from the seizure reports when it was taken from his home to when it was entered as evidence at his trial, to show it.

Let's try one out.

FACT OR ALLEGATION: your Chiefsplanet handle is Micjones

Give up? That one's a fact! Let's try another.

FACT OR ALLEGATION: you're being retarded

This is a tricky one! I know it seems like a fact, but it's only an allegation.

We can, believe it or not, separate facts from allegations. You can cry about Maureen Orth all you want. You can completely ignore the allegations made in her articles if you don't believe her. But you can't ignore facts. If Hitler tells you the sky is blue, are you going to deny it's true because of who told you?

I have outlined a laundry list of facts that you are running away from like a taut pre-teen boy with no pants trying to get out of Neverland. The more you continue to ignore the existence of these facts, the more foolish you look.

Just so you know, this is what you're coming off like:

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/7185/boyhandsoverearsxs9.jpg

We'll just gloss over the fact that her representation of the facts is spotty at best

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/6509/potkettleblack.jpg

The fact that Taraborrelli's been critical of Jackson both personally and in print dispatches the idea that he CANNOT be objective as it relates to Jackson and his circumstances.

So it doesn't raise your suspicion that this one book is the only place you're going to hear these stories?

The author described the strip search far differently (and far better for Michael) than the people who were actually there, but that doesn't raise any red flags with you? The author made it seem like everyone was there to see if Michael was circumcized, when it was actually the colored splotches, and that doesn't seem at all strange?

That he'd completely misrepresent the story while giving this grand detail of Michael's innocence -- a detail that apparently only HE knows -- doesn't make you wonder? Not even just a little bit?

Of course it doesn't because you're not even familiar with what I just described. You're taking your talking points off some "WAYS TO DEFEND JACKO" website.

As I've said what seems like 10 times, and as you continue to demonstrate, you're willing to believe anything and everything in support of Michael. But anything against him has to meet an emmense burden of proof that nothing short of a tape of Michael jacking some kid off will ever reach.

And then you'd just tell us how the tape was doctored.

In the Arvizo case...the same doctor, himself, characterized his examination of Gavin Arvizo as cursory. He went on to say that he was NOT asked to do an in-depth evaluation of the boy.

The world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) said he believed the boy had been abused by Michael Jackson. He interviewed him twice, just for the record.

I'll ask again: does that not give you pause? Or is that world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) not such a good source anymore? Is a world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) not capable of making such a determination after conducting two separate "cursory" interviews with a child?

Because if not, it sure is strange that you'd jump to cite him as a character witness for Michael -- someone he never examined at all. Yes, that's another issue you were wrong about when you were "bubbling over with facts".

Care to provide a link for that?

Other examples aside, I know he's quoted directly on the matter in one of the Vanity Fair articles. I gave the link earlier in the thread.

Read 'em, maybe you'll learn something as you look for the quote. Unlikely, I know.

Where are these facts documented aside from Vanity Fair and The Smoking Gun piece that you alluded to previously?

Court records of Case #1133603 - The People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson. Just to name one source you may be familiar with.

The Santa Barbara Superior Court site has pretty thorough documentation of things that go through their county. Go nuts:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org

You mean Jason Francia?

That would be the guy who testified at the trial, yes. That's three accusers, a direct contradictment of your statement in your post "bubbling over with facts" where you said "Only two kids have EVER come forward".

I mean, right off the bat you were wrong. Come on.

It's also a fact that the lead investigator, Robel, said the materials were LEGAL.

Yes, there's nothing illegal about having copies of Barely Legal and "Plumpers" and whatever else he had.

But does it not give you pause that Michael had these magazines (and videos!) (and pictures of naked boys!) right there in his bedroom, the place he's repeatedly hailed as a wonderful safe place for children? Where kids can frolic and play and climb into bed with him and, why, it's just the most loving place in the whole wide world?

It's also a fact that the magazines weren't examined until AFTER the boy's Grand Jury testimony where he handled the documents in question.

I suppose this explains why you've had such trouble separating facts from allegations -- you don't actually know what a fact is.

Just because Michael Jackson's defense argues something doesn't make it true. The defense tried to argue that the accuser MIGHT have touched something during the grand jury. The prosecution called a witness in rebuttal that said, uh, no they didn't.

The defense also suggested the boy and his brother broke into Michael's porn stash behind his back and Michael caught them with dirty magazines, which he took away from them. (They just happened to know where the porn was.)

It's called "grasping at straws". They're going to suggest anything to explain why the boy's fingerprints were on Michael's porn, other than the obvious reason.

You're right. And there's good reason why you've repeatedly danced around the holes in the Arvizo case.

I haven't danced around anything. I didn't say there were no holes in the Arvizo case. Quite obviously there were, since the jury found Michael not guilty.

You are the one who acted like there's nothing at all to suggest that Michael ever molested children. Quite obviously, you're wrong.

The question is whether you'll ever admit it.

RJ
07-07-2009, 09:14 PM
"Michael Jackson was a pedophile!!"

"No, he wasn't!!"

End of story. None of you know and none of you ever will.

Boris The Great
07-07-2009, 10:01 PM
None of you know and none of you ever will.

Little kids saw so much of Mike Jacksons nutsack that they could draw pictures pointing out all the Dusty Rhodes splotches on it.

But yeah, we will never know.

RJ
07-07-2009, 10:08 PM
Little kids saw so much of Mike Jacksons nutsack that they could draw pictures pointing out all the Dusty Rhodes splotches on it.

But yeah, we will never know.


No, we won't. You might, but we won't.

And the guy who knows it never happened?

He doesn't know either.