Leaving Neverland
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:31 pm    Post subject:

Literally 0 rebuttal to the actual facts of the allegations and trials, just a bunch of people clinging on to a one sided extremely biased documentary that is purely a he said she said story of the events without any hard evidence. Crazy to me that people really believe a clearly slanted documentary over FBI investigations and other legal evidence and testimonies under oath.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:41 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
splashmtn wrote:

Quote:
stop it. You dont know what mike did or didnt do outside of acting like a weirdo.

so please stop acting like you KNOW for SURE what happened or didnt happen. you dont, neither do any of us. I like how you said "as adults." as if mr Robson didnt tell us nothing happened as a child. So are you running from that too? i mean the twisting and turning you have to do when ALL of the facts are presented from all sides. Just admit. you dont know what happened. even after such a salacious doc thats told from one side. admit it.

None of us were there so in that sense none of us knows for sure what happened. Think of this like a court trial. Evidence is presented, weighed and judged. If you believe the evidence this belief will determine guilt or innocence in the mind of the perceiver. I viewed episode 1 and think Michael was a pedophile. If you viewed and drew a different conclusion so be it. That's your prerogative. In the eye of the beholder. I don't believe all each said but the preponderance leads me to believe Michael was a pedophile.


This is the problem with people on here. You guys are only listening to ONE side the story without considering the other side of the story. You guys think the documentary is enough.

So yes, think of this as a trial.

The prosecution gives their story (The Leaving Neverland Documentary).

The accusers give detail description on how the molestation occurred and on which dates. They give evidence to prove their case (rings, notes etc.) and witness testimony.

What does the defense do?

The defense will go every single alleged date and point out the lies in their story AND give a possible motive as to why they're bringing these accusation against the alleged abuser.

If the accusers and witness prove to be liars on most of these alleged claims, THEN the jury will have a very difficult time believing their story,

That is how it generally plays out. If you keep lying about stuff, then the jury is going to have a hard time believing your accusations that you cannot. prove.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4572

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:46 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
jodeke wrote:
splashmtn wrote:

Quote:
stop it. You dont know what mike did or didnt do outside of acting like a weirdo.

so please stop acting like you KNOW for SURE what happened or didnt happen. you dont, neither do any of us. I like how you said "as adults." as if mr Robson didnt tell us nothing happened as a child. So are you running from that too? i mean the twisting and turning you have to do when ALL of the facts are presented from all sides. Just admit. you dont know what happened. even after such a salacious doc thats told from one side. admit it.

None of us were there so in that sense none of us knows for sure what happened. Think of this like a court trial. Evidence is presented, weighed and judged. If you believe the evidence this belief will determine guilt or innocence in the mind of the perceiver. I viewed episode 1 and think Michael was a pedophile. If you viewed and drew a different conclusion so be it. That's your prerogative. In the eye of the beholder. I don't believe all each said but the preponderance leads me to believe Michael was a pedophile.


This is the problem with people on here. You guys are only listening to ONE side the story without considering the other side of the story. You guys think the documentary is enough.

So yes, think of this as a trial.

The prosecution gives their story (The Leaving Neverland Documentary).

The accusers give detail description on how the molestation occurred and on which dates. They give evidence to prove their case (rings, notes etc.) and witness testimony.

What does the defense do?

The defense will go every single alleged date and point out the lies in their story AND give a possible motive as to why they're bringing these accusation against the alleged abuser.

If the accusers and witness prove to be liars on most of these alleged claims, THEN the jury will have a very difficult time believing their story,

That is how it generally plays out. If you keep lying about stuff, then the jury is going to have a hard time believing your accusations that you cannot. prove.


Funny thing is, there already was a trial in 2005 with all of this included in it. The verdict was not guilty. In 93 they couldn't even find enough evidence for a trial and it doesn't take much at all for a child molestation trial to start.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53714

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:50 pm    Post subject:

The Juggernaut wrote:
Literally 0 rebuttal to the actual facts of the allegations and trials, just a bunch of people clinging on to a one sided extremely biased documentary that is purely a he said she said story of the events without any hard evidence. Crazy to me that people really believe a clearly slanted documentary over FBI investigations and other legal evidence and testimonies under oath.


Are people really supposed to go digging through old trial documents to convince 3 people in this thread of something that they won't be convinced of anyway? Even finding acceptable the behavior he openly flaunted and admitted to is horrible. People who dove into this thread claws out and armed with Michael Jackson fan blog websites as source material (and who haven't watched the documentary this thread is the subject of) clearly are not the type of people to be swayed. We get it. He sought out the company of young boys (not girls, mind you) to hold hands with and sleep in the same bed with and even though several of them have said so it's ludicrous to think he was engaging in abusive behavior. What a hill to die on.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:59 pm    Post subject:

The Juggernaut wrote:

Funny thing is, there already was a trial in 2005 with all of this included in it. The verdict was not guilty. In 93 they couldn't even find enough evidence for a trial and it doesn't take much at all for a child molestation trial to start.


And they don't even know The 93 accuser was secretly recorded.



Started at 41:30 (
)
Geraldine Hughes was working for Evan Chandler and she says, "And I actually witnessed them set Michael Jackson up."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
panamaniac
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 11238
Location: PTY

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:02 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
Some of the of known lies\inconsistencies from Wade Robson and James Safechuck

- James Safechuck claims their family invited Michael Jackson over for Thanksgiving 1987, but Michael Jackson was in Australia on that date.

- Wade Robson claims he decided to testify for Michael Jackson after seeing his children before he testified and felt sympathy for them. This did not happen before he testified, it happened after. This part was edited OUT of the documentary.

- James Safechuck claims he was harassed by MJ's laywers. This is false because Witnesses were chosen 7-8 and the judge could not allow him to come in as a witness during the time frame of his alleged allegations.

- Wade Robson claims he knew nothing about about the MJ Estate, but lied because he had to go through Estate because he wanted the Michael Jackson: ONE gig.

- Wade claims he was given a subpoena to testify, yet the private investigator says that was false.

- Wade also claims he was pressured to testify, but the private investigator states that he had to get through several people to become a witness in teh trial, which makes his accusations false.

- Wade Robson stated in court document that he was molested by Michael Jackson the second day while his family was there, and this changed later.

- Wade Robson claims he was in a relationship and MJ told him to stay away from Women, but Wade Robson does not state int eh documentary that he dated Michael Jackson's niece.

- Wade Robson stated in court documents that this sexual abuse put him through so much drama that he was unable to work in the same industry, yet there's evidence proving otherwise.

- Wade Robson lied and said he never sent his book to publishers, but emails were discovered proving that he lied.


MJs nephew Taj was also present at that dinner, and was mentioned by Robson in the schlockumentary, but was flagrantly edited out by the filmmakers. Didn't fit the narrative.

Other glaring inconsistencies...

- Robson claiming MJ gave him the red Thriller jacket; even though it was actually kept by the costume designer, and later auctioned off to some random rich dude for $1.8M in 2011.

- Safechuk claiming he was given Indiana Jones's bullwhip; even though there's only one in existence, and was donated to the Institute of Archaeology in London in 1990.

- Safechuck "honeymooning" with Jackson in Euro Disney in 1988. Euro Disney opened in 1992. Moreover, this is the time frame in which Jimmy claims MJ was "estranged" from him (shortly before 1993), only to later reach out to him. Right.

- Safechuck whipping out some random ring, a "childhood wedding ring", with no possible method of verifying that it actually came from Jackson. He also claimed that they filled "wedding vows". Oh Jmmy, if you actually kept a pedo's wedding ring for 20+ years, why didn't you do the same for the vows? And if Michael kept them, how come they weren't found during the raid of his estate? Scintillating storytelling folks.

Both Robson and Safecuck carefully archived every innocuous polaroid, birthday greetings, hey what's up phone messages, etc. Yet any tidbit which may have provided the faintest (bleep) substantiation to their claims have all been conveniently swept away by the rigors of time. Any reasonable observer would *have* to call bs on this.

If you are going to mount a Jerry Springer-caliber (bleep) show, and willfully attempt to defame a dead person, at least have the decency to make sure your facts and timelines check out. I'm disappointed this pathetic excuse of a film was allowed to debut at Cannes. And on a personal note, I thought that the acting was terrible.


Last edited by panamaniac on Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:16 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:02 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
Literally 0 rebuttal to the actual facts of the allegations and trials, just a bunch of people clinging on to a one sided extremely biased documentary that is purely a he said she said story of the events without any hard evidence. Crazy to me that people really believe a clearly slanted documentary over FBI investigations and other legal evidence and testimonies under oath.


Are people really supposed to go digging through old trial documents to convince 3 people in this thread of something that they won't be convinced of anyway? Even finding acceptable the behavior he openly flaunted and admitted to is horrible. People who dove into this thread claws out and armed with Michael Jackson fan blog websites as source material (and who haven't watched the documentary this thread is the subject of) clearly are not the type of people to be swayed. We get it. He sought out the company of young boys (not girls, mind you) to hold hands with and sleep in the same bed with and even though several of them have said so it's ludicrous to think he was engaging in abusive behavior. What a hill to die on.


There's videos and blog sites that do it for you with links to sources.

Yes, he sought out company of girls.

It's not about being a MJ fan, it's about knowing the facts. I came in with an open mind, and the more lies that are discovered, the harder it is for me to believe their stories.

Only thing you guys have going for you is that

1) He slept in the same bed with children.
2) He was a weirdo

That's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
anth2000
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 12070
Location: Pasadena, CA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:03 pm    Post subject:

Hey, I get it guys. My comments are just my opinion. I have always thought MJ was a weirdo. That's ok to say. As far as the other comments I made, its what I had read over the years....once again, just my opinion.

I do think a lot of MJ fans are blind that defend him. I mean, hell, folks like Kevin Spacey, Weinstein, R Kelly, Bryan Singer, all had dirt on them for years before they caught.

Hey, perhaps you guys are right. MJ was totally normal, never slept with little kids, never did anything bad. That could be totally true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:05 pm    Post subject:

panamaniac wrote:

If you are going to mount a Jerry Springer-caliber (bleep) show, and willfully attempt to defame a dead person, at least have the decency to make sure your facts and timelines check out. I'm disappointed this pathetic excuse of a film was allowed to debut at Cannes. And on a personal note, I thought that the acting was terrible.


It's odd that people don't even want to consider looking at sources outside of this documentary.

If people want to be fair, then they actually have to look at all the facts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:13 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
The Juggernaut wrote:
Literally 0 rebuttal to the actual facts of the allegations and trials, just a bunch of people clinging on to a one sided extremely biased documentary that is purely a he said she said story of the events without any hard evidence. Crazy to me that people really believe a clearly slanted documentary over FBI investigations and other legal evidence and testimonies under oath.


Are people really supposed to go digging through old trial documents to convince 3 people in this thread of something that they won't be convinced of anyway? Even finding acceptable the behavior he openly flaunted and admitted to is horrible. People who dove into this thread claws out and armed with Michael Jackson fan blog websites as source material (and who haven't watched the documentary this thread is the subject of) clearly are not the type of people to be swayed. We get it. He sought out the company of young boys (not girls, mind you) to hold hands with and sleep in the same bed with and even though several of them have said so it's ludicrous to think he was engaging in abusive behavior. What a hill to die on.


Not to mention that the fact that some of the accusers have credibility issues in no way evaporates the huge plumes of smoke that emanate from the fire that is the admitted behavior.

Another misstatement that commonly comes from MJ's dedicated supporters is that because a trial didn't end in a guilty verdict, it is proof of innocence, and that's jut not how things work. And despite the claim that it is very easy to get a trial going in a molestation case, its really isn't all that easy - and especially not when the accused is a very famous and otherwise worshipped celebrity with power and resources to make it more difficult. And that's nit too men ion how such hero worship makes it very difficult to get a jury to convict even if it does go to trial.

And one other thing, this whole idea that everyone is suddenly convinced of MJ's pedophilia based solely on this one documentary and that is just not the case. This doc was clearly a tipping point for some, but there are many people who saw the writing on the wall long ago. MK's behavior was not merely that of a slightly eccentric and well intentioned guy or "weirdo". And as I said before, if Joe Schmoe was engaging in that behavior instead of MJ, no one would be contorting themselves to try and deflect from that behavior most obviously means.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now


Last edited by DaMuleRules on Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nickuku
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 7844
Location: Orange County

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:14 pm    Post subject:

If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:21 pm    Post subject:

nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53714

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:25 pm    Post subject:

nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


They work for free too. If you can moonwalk
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
anth2000
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 12070
Location: Pasadena, CA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:39 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant


So, do you think MJ is innocent of any wrong doing? I mean, we all heard the narrative, he was never prosecuted, doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.
Keep in mind, a jury found OJ innocent too but was found guilty in the Civil trial. In my opinion, based on everything I read, including the book by Vincent Bugliosi, the famous Manson prosecutor, OJ was more than guilty of murder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:46 pm    Post subject:

anth2000 wrote:
RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant


So, do you think MJ is innocent of any wrong doing? I mean, we all heard the narrative, he was never prosecuted, doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.
Keep in mind, a jury found OJ innocent too but was found guilty in the Civil trial. In my opinion, based on everything I read, including the book by Vincent Bugliosi, the famous Manson prosecutor, OJ was more than guilty of murder.


I think it's clear you haven't done any research.

You're comparing two cases in which they both played out differently. They had evidence OJ was guilty, but they never had evidence that MJ was guilty. The investigators also mishandled the case and put Mark on the stand and they found tapes of him talking about how he wanted to kill black people.

The reason why OJ lost the civil case because they found a picture of OJ wearing the murder shoes.

Right now there's nothing to even suggest that MJ is guilty, but there's evidence that proves that his accusers are liars. If you are truly innocent and want justice, then these accusers shouldn't have lied so many times.

Making up a story is easy, and that's what people on here don't realize in regards to this case.

Do you know how many men have been sent to jail because a woman accused them of rape? Do you know how many convictions have been overturned because the woman admitted they lied?

If you keep lying and changing your story over and over again, then the jury is not going to find you credible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
panamaniac
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 11238
Location: PTY

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:53 pm    Post subject:

anth2000 wrote:
RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant


So, do you think MJ is innocent of any wrong doing? I mean, we all heard the narrative, he was never prosecuted, doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.
Keep in mind, a jury found OJ innocent too but was found guilty in the Civil trial. In my opinion, based on everything I read, including the book by Vincent Bugliosi, the famous Manson prosecutor, OJ was more than guilty of murder.


I'm not sure that the OJ case and the MJ case are in any way similar. The OJ trial lasted for about 11 months, and was a spectacle and a complete clown show. The MJ trial (in 2005) was scheduled to last six to eight months, and finalized in less than five. The legal evidence presented was categorically laughed out of court. 14 counts, exonerated on each one. While OJ scraped by, MJ was acquitted (bleep) resoundingly.


Last edited by panamaniac on Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:53 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant


Let me expose some arrogance going on here . . . and some ignorance.

One should have no problem voicing opinions about someone's potential innocence. But when in order to do so, you feel the need to try insult others who don't share that opinion, you are heading down a path that gets you nowhere.

I have been following the allegations against MJ since the beginning. And I certainly agree that there have been aspects of them that are tainted and questionable. But I am weighing everything that I have come to know in the roughly decade and a half of them.

So to say I am "ignorant" because I don't share your opinion on how all of that information, known and proven or otherwise, comes together is arrogant, lazy and flat out incorrect. I have also managed to voice my personal assessment of the allegations with resorting to direct insults. I have simply and fairly stated where I think some people are misinterpreting what things like "not guilty" verdicts etc. mean where they stand in regards to out weighing all the other information that isn't even in dispute.

So if you think you have made some kind of point by label;eing people "ignorant" you couldn't be more off base.

And none of that changes simply because you have watched a bunch of true crime TV.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
anth2000
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 12070
Location: Pasadena, CA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:00 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
anth2000 wrote:
RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant


So, do you think MJ is innocent of any wrong doing? I mean, we all heard the narrative, he was never prosecuted, doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.
Keep in mind, a jury found OJ innocent too but was found guilty in the Civil trial. In my opinion, based on everything I read, including the book by Vincent Bugliosi, the famous Manson prosecutor, OJ was more than guilty of murder.


I think it's clear you haven't done any research.

You're comparing two cases in which they both played out differently. They had evidence OJ was guilty, but they never had evidence that MJ was guilty. The investigators also mishandled the case and put Mark on the stand and they found tapes of him talking about how he wanted to kill black people.

The reason why OJ lost the civil case because they found a picture of OJ wearing the murder shoes.

Right now there's nothing to even suggest that MJ is guilty, but there's evidence that proves that his accusers are liars. If you are truly innocent and want justice, then these accusers shouldn't have lied so many times.

Making up a story is easy, and that's what people on here don't realize in regards to this case.

Do you know how many men have been sent to jail because a woman accused them of rape? Do you know how many convictions have been overturned because the woman admitted they lied?

If you keep lying and changing your story over and over again, then the jury is not going to find you credible.


True, its not my job to do any research. I am just stating my opinion. I am not taking this as serious as you are. Just stating my opinion. I am not a criminal defense lawyer so I don't know all the facts of the case or any case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:01 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
jodeke wrote:
splashmtn wrote:

Quote:
stop it. You dont know what mike did or didnt do outside of acting like a weirdo.

so please stop acting like you KNOW for SURE what happened or didnt happen. you dont, neither do any of us. I like how you said "as adults." as if mr Robson didnt tell us nothing happened as a child. So are you running from that too? i mean the twisting and turning you have to do when ALL of the facts are presented from all sides. Just admit. you dont know what happened. even after such a salacious doc thats told from one side. admit it.

None of us were there so in that sense none of us knows for sure what happened. Think of this like a court trial. Evidence is presented, weighed and judged. If you believe the evidence this belief will determine guilt or innocence in the mind of the perceiver. I viewed episode 1 and think Michael was a pedophile. If you viewed and drew a different conclusion so be it. That's your prerogative. In the eye of the beholder. I don't believe all each said but the preponderance leads me to believe Michael was a pedophile.


This is the problem with people on here. You guys are only listening to ONE side the story without considering the other side of the story. You guys think the documentary is enough.

So yes, think of this as a trial.

The prosecution gives their story (The Leaving Neverland Documentary).

The accusers give detail description on how the molestation occurred and on which dates. They give evidence to prove their case (rings, notes etc.) and witness testimony.

What does the defense do?

The defense will go every single alleged date and point out the lies in their story AND give a possible motive as to why they're bringing these accusation against the alleged abuser.

If the accusers and witness prove to be liars on most of these alleged claims, THEN the jury will have a very difficult time believing their story,

That is how it generally plays out. If you keep lying about stuff, then the jury is going to have a hard time believing your accusations that you cannot. prove.

The doc wasn't the decider. The decider for me was documented Michael slept in the bed alone with young boys. I thought Michael was a pedophile before it aired.

I didn't believe all the accuses said. I believed they lied in some accounts. I do believe Michael molested the two accusers. Some of their statements were graphic and disturbing. I think it's a money grab.

Leave the accusers aside. I'll ask you, honestly, do you think Michael is a pedophile? I'm not looking for a bloviated (SAS ) dissertation, just a YES or NO honest answer.

If I have it right the statue of limitations has expired. IMO Those suing Michael's estate hope Leaving Neverland will help their case and find a way to extend the statute date.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:02 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant


Let me expose some arrogance going on here . . . and some ignorance.

One should have no problem voicing opinions about someone's potential innocence. But when in order to do so, you feel the need to try insult others who don't share that opinion, you are heading down a path that gets you nowhere.

I have been following the allegations against MJ since the beginning. And I certainly agree that there have been aspects of them that are tainted and questionable. But I am weighing everything that I have come to know in the roughly decade and a half of them.

So to say I am "ignorant" because I don't share your opinion on how all of that information, known and proven or otherwise, comes together is arrogant, lazy and flat out incorrect. I have also managed to voice my personal assessment of the allegations with resorting to direct insults. I have simply and fairly stated where I think some people are misinterpreting what things like "not guilty" verdicts etc. mean where they stand in regards to out weighing all the other information that isn't even in dispute.

So if you think you have made some kind of point by label;eing people "ignorant" you couldn't be more off base.

And none of that changes simply because you have watched a bunch of true crime TV.


No.

Just no..

You're posting lies, which is different than posting just an opinion.

We can see all the court documents available to us, and anyone who has actually looked at them knows that did not have evidence against Michael Jackson.

So if anyone says that his celebrity status protected him without looking at the facts, then yes, you're going to come off as very ignorant.

And your claim about "if this was an average person, no one would be defending you."

Tell me how many people were defending guys like Travon Martin or all of the other people shot by police.

Wait, you told me people only do this because they're fans, right?

And you've been following the allegations? Well, you sure haven't looked up the evidence of this case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:08 pm    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:

The doc wasn't the decider. I thought Michael was a pedophile before it aired.

I didn't believe all the accuses said. I believed they lied in some accounts. I do believe Michael molested the two accusers. Some of their statements were graphic and disturbing. I think it's a money grab.

Leave the accusers aside. I'll ask you, honestly, do you think Michael is a pedophile? I'm not looking for a bloviated (SAS ) dissertation, just a YES or NO honest answer.

If I have it right the statue of limitations has expired. IMO Those suing Michael's estate hope Leaving Neverland will help their case and find a way to extend the statute date.


No, I don't believe he's a pedophile.

Is that based on proof that he did not 100% molest them? No. If all of the accusers are looking for money and have lied so many times, then I can only conclude that it's very likely that they're lying about their accusations.

I can say that there is a possibility because I wasn't there, but again, I can't believe them.

I thought he was years ago before actually looked up the facts, and I can't find evidence that would make me believe that he molested these children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:09 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
RetroNikes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
nickuku wrote:
If i was a child molester I'd want some of you on my PR team. That is all.


That's the thing, if you were, none of those people would be defending you, even under the exact same set if circumstances.


Let me expose some ignorance because it seems people on here don't like facts.

I'm a big fan of crime documentaries and investigation discovery is one of my favorite channels of all time. I love to watch Forensic Files, Investigation Discovery etc.


I had no problem voicing my opinion on cases in which I believe people are innocent.

You guys have no once offered a rebuttal to the facts. This means you guys choose to stay ignorant


Let me expose some arrogance going on here . . . and some ignorance.

One should have no problem voicing opinions about someone's potential innocence. But when in order to do so, you feel the need to try insult others who don't share that opinion, you are heading down a path that gets you nowhere.

I have been following the allegations against MJ since the beginning. And I certainly agree that there have been aspects of them that are tainted and questionable. But I am weighing everything that I have come to know in the roughly decade and a half of them.

So to say I am "ignorant" because I don't share your opinion on how all of that information, known and proven or otherwise, comes together is arrogant, lazy and flat out incorrect. I have also managed to voice my personal assessment of the allegations with resorting to direct insults. I have simply and fairly stated where I think some people are misinterpreting what things like "not guilty" verdicts etc. mean where they stand in regards to out weighing all the other information that isn't even in dispute.

So if you think you have made some kind of point by label;eing people "ignorant" you couldn't be more off base.

And none of that changes simply because you have watched a bunch of true crime TV.


No.

Just no..

You're posting lies, which is different than posting just an opinion.

We can see all the court documents available to us, and anyone who has actually looked at them knows that did not have evidence against Michael Jackson.

So if anyone says that his celebrity status protected him without looking at the facts, then yes, you're going to come off as very ignorant.

And your claim about "if this was an average person, no one would be defending you."

Tell me how many people were defending guys like Travon Martin or all of the other people shot by police.

Wait, you told me people only do this because they're fans, right?

And you've been following the allegations? Well, you sure haven't looked up the evidence of this case.


They did not get a conviction, but they did present evidence.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RetroNikes
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 6376

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:12 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:


They did not get a conviction, but they did present evidence.


I'm talking about evidence that proves he molested children.

What they had was very weak.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:13 pm    Post subject:

RetroNikes wrote:
Omar Little wrote:


They did not get a conviction, but they did present evidence.


I'm talking about evidence that proves he molested children.

What they had was very weak.


It's fair for you to have your opinion of the evidence, but that's a lot different than the claim that I referenced. Maybe you should lay off chiding others about accuracy and honesty eh?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 9 of 16
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB