Michael Jackson

B

barry2952

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
0
There are a couple of things about the case the prosecutor presents that I don't get. I understand that there were hundreds of pornographic magazines, tapes and pictures of young women. Not young boys. Some of these magazines were really old.

I haven't know many pedophiles but everything I've read and heard has stated that they are obsessed with their particular fantasy or fetish. Why would he have an extensive collection of heterosexual pornography, and nothing else? To stimulate young boys? Like you'd need a huge collection for that. Remember the Sears catalogue? It sounds like the collection of a straight man. A weird man, but not a pediphile.
 
First thing learned in criminal mind & behavioral course: Most pedophiles and other sexually defunct wacko's..... hetros.
 
Seems unusual that he would have no magazines or material geared toward what he is accused of. But with jackson, anything is possible I suppose.
 
I think the case is irrelivant,...hang him.
 
Joeychgo said:
Seems unusual that he would have no magazines or material geared toward what he is accused of. But with jackson, anything is possible I suppose.
Click to expand...


Joey to my knowledge, they dont have magazines geared toward rapping little boys, but hey your the expert. j/k
 
barry2952 said:
The boy's a rapper?
Click to expand...

:bowrofl: HaHaHa. Barry made a joke. You're coming around... slowly but surely. I am quite it is my bad influence that is having this profound effect on you.;)
 
Actually Bryan, you have had an effect on me. A positive one, in fact. I now try to listen to both sides of a story before I react. That's why this MJ case is so strange to me.

While it is true that most pedophiles are hetrosexual, those typically prey on little girls. Pedophiles that prey on little boys are typically homosexual or are sexually disfunctional.

I'm no expert but 72 magazines and not one of them has anything to do with boys. I'm not convinced of his guilt yet.
 
Jacko is just too wacko for me. I know all of us were "Thriller" fans, but to see the guy act like he does, somethings not right. The kid had no childhood whatsoever, his Dad was especially tough, some might even say abusive. To me, that all adds up to Michael being out of the ordinary. He may not fit a convenient profile for a boy child molestor, but his actions speak louder than words. Having a child not of your own blood sleeping in bed with you is plain wrong. He didn't learn from the 1st event. Personally, I wouldn't give him a 3rd crack at it. This sneeking wine in soda cans and all this stuff doesn't add up. Doesn't pass the sniff test. If it looks like, walks like and quacks like, it probably is like.
icon12.gif
 
Guilty or not, I think he was just plain stupid to put himself in a position where he could be accused again. Just like doctors that have a nurse present when examining female patients he should have had someone with him that could have testified as to what didn't happen.

The "Jesus Juice" bothered me alot but who's to say that someone couldn't look at the way you all grew up and extrapolate something wierd from it.
 
Agreed, but people don't run around building private amusement parks for kids, (picture a man in a trench coat rolling down the window of his beater van and asking a little girls if they want to see his pet bunny), having sleep overs when you're the only adult present, etc. etc. I don't even think Jacko has had sex with a woman. It certainly wasn't with Presley, and I think he just made the donation via jar to make his kids. There is just too much wrong to give huim the benefit of the doubt at this point. Besides that, he now sucks as an artist.
 
A couple of my observation concerning this Jackson trial.

I think the reason he proably didn't show the kid gay porn was because he didn't want to scare him away.
Most kids at that age are not sure what it is all about and to bombard him with gay stuff may have frightened the kid.
Showing him hetro stuff gets his attention and more than likely the kid was more at ease.
Now, I would be ready to make a bet that if the trial looks like it is going against Jackson, he will skip the country before the trial ends.
I didn't belive this "bad back" problem for a minute.
If one's back is bad enough to require hospitalization, he would have been so high on percodan or morphene, he wouldn't have been able to show up at court at all.
He is looking for sympathy.
 
Barry, I think it was mentioned in court that some of those magazines had pictures of young boys in what was called "suggestive poses", some in underwear.
Weather they were shown to his victims I don't recall hearing but, they were among the collection confiscated by the district attorney.
Pedofiles usually don't give up their obsession and, I don't think this will be the last we see of Mr Jackson in a court facing similar charges.
As I said in the other thread started by Joey, The only reason he was aquitted was because thew prosecution did a lousy job of handeling their case against him.
 
barry2952 said:
Actually Bryan, you have had an effect on me. A positive one, in fact. I now try to listen to both sides of a story before I react. That's why this MJ case is so strange to me.

While it is true that most pedophiles are hetrosexual, those typically prey on little girls. Pedophiles that prey on little boys are typically homosexual or are sexually disfunctional.

I'm no expert but 72 magazines and not one of them has anything to do with boys. I'm not convinced of his guilt yet.
Click to expand...


Barry,The prosecution confiscated magazines from the ranch that showed young boys ,in what was called"suggestive poses"
I didn't hear if those magazines were actually shown to the victims.
One way or another, I
don't think we have heard the last of this pedophile.
A leopard does not change it's spots , and pedophiles don't just stop.
The only reason he was aquitted was because the prosecution did a terrible job of presenting their case.
 
If I were Michael Jackson I'd keep my nose pretty clean. No more sleepovers.

I thought the prosecution put on a hell of a case. They just had rotten witnesses. Different perspective, but the same outcome.
 
barry2952 said:
Hmmm! Did you see any credible witnesses? The jury didn't either.
Click to expand...

Here is a great point. Whether you think the king of wierd is guilty or not in order to be convited you have to be proven guilty.

The evidence has to be there not just hey this is a weird guy he must be guilty.
 
Many of the witnesses were as weird as Michael Jackson. The boy's mother was quite the prize. What kind of a parent would allow their child to sleep in any adult's bed? She should be charged with child endangerment, amongst other things.
 
MonsterMark said:
Jacko is just too wacko for me. I know all of us were "Thriller" fans, but to see the guy act like he does, somethings not right. The kid had no childhood whatsoever, his Dad was especially tough, some might even say abusive. To me, that all adds up to Michael being out of the ordinary. He may not fit a convenient profile for a boy child molestor, but his actions speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

I agree Mike is wacko! Way too Strange but that doesn't make him a child molestor.

Why did this kids parents have him hanging around Jacko!


MonsterMark said:
Having a child not of your own blood sleeping in bed with you is plain wrong. He didn't learn from the 1st event. Personally, I wouldn't give him a 3rd crack at it. This sneeking wine in soda cans and all this stuff doesn't add up. Doesn't pass the sniff test. If it looks like, walks like and quacks like, it probably is like.
icon12.gif
Click to expand...

I agree!

What I told myself at the start of this whole thing was Jacko was weird but it is up to the Jury to decide the case. I wasn't there I didn't see all the evidence.

So I said like him or not and I really don't like him I would accept what they found.
 
if this wasnt a huge pop star but a catholic priest, he woulda been guilty until proven guilty and woulda been in prison after the first ten minutes of deliberation. no witnesses needed.
 
The Catholic Church in the US just reported that they have paid out $1 Billion dollars in sexual misconduct settlements yet there are virtually no Catholic priests in prison. Blows your arguement.
 
Gruuvin8 said:
if this wasnt a huge pop star but a catholic priest, he woulda been guilty until proven guilty and woulda been in prison after the first ten minutes of deliberation. no witnesses needed.
Click to expand...

I had thought the same thing when I heard the verdicts. Every person that came forward with molestation cases that involved a catholic all had big pay days. Not that it didn't happen but I did not see one case where they prosecution had, pardon the pun, hard physical evidence. Just the word of someone that got paid at the end of the civil trial that followed.
 
eL eS said:
I had thought the same thing when I heard the verdicts. Every person that came forward with molestation cases that involved a catholic all had big pay days. Not that it didn't happen but I did not see one case where they prosecution had, pardon the pun, hard physical evidence. Just the word of someone that got paid at the end of the civil trial that followed.
Click to expand...

Big payoffs usually indicate guilt and subverts jail time. The payoffs also keep the public humiliation factor to a minimum. The latter is why extortion is so rampant in this country.
 
barry2952 said:
Hmmm! Did you see any credible witnesses? The jury didn't either.
Click to expand...

the joury wasnt paying attention. When one child had finished his description of his account of jacko molesting him, the joury just sat there laughing and talking amongst themselves. California lives in a fairytale world. I trust NOTHING that comes out of cali. If you want to poke fun at AHHNOLD to make a point, go for it...hes a bum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 157 (members: 0, guests: 157)
Back
Top