Well you gotta remember it's not the court that will decide his fate, it's the jury, and I don't think the prosecution had a strong enough case against him, so I think he will walk. As for whether he is guilty or not, I'm not sure. At first I didn't believe it, but now I'm not so sure. And what was with his defense? Bringing up kids he didn't molest, like that's gonna prove anything. Maybe Scott Peterson's lawyers should have called up women Scott had met in his life he didn't murder. "See, he didn't molest this kid, so he must be innocent, right?" Please, that was the lamest defense I've ever seen. It's a good thing for him that the prosecution's case was so weak. Sorry for getting off topic here, but I had to get this off my chest
Film & TV M. Jackson
- Thread starter fields316_2000
- Start date
CalcuoCuchicheo said:
Yeah but the dude went out of his way to specify - so this didn't turn into a "did he, didn't he" thread where Pennypacker just starts dumping on mofos 
Edit: And Irish, you just smoke your weed & stfu.
Edit: And Irish, you just smoke your weed & stfu.
The man is innocent. Period.
The mother's former attorney, Larry Feldman, is a liar, for sure. He's the guy she went to before going to the police or anyone else.
On the stand, Feldman said he believed the family and that they are credible. At lunch with Larry King and another guy, he told them that he didn't believe the family and thought they were going after money.
Unfortunately, the judge never let the testimony of King and the other guy in, for some strange reason. Read this:
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2376/2/
Read this:
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2444/2/
Read this as well:
That documentary said absolutely nothing about sex or molestation. That documentary confirms what Michael has been saying all the time: the kids sleep on the bed, he sleeps on the floor. Actually, the kids sleep everywhere...on the sofa, bed, infront of the TV, on the rides at Neverland, etc.
The documentary confirms the truth: Neverland is an extremely laid back place where you can pretty much do everything you want to do. You can eat whatever you want to eat, you can sleep wherever you want to sleep, etc.
The reason why Michael went ahead with the documentary is because he has nothing to hide. His story has never changed. No pedophile would ever tell the public "I let kids sleep in my bed."
You're right. He shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. It put him in a bad position.
That's too general of a question. Who is the man and under what circumstances is the sleepover? How well do I know the man? My first thought is I would never do that to my child, but that's not what is going on at Neverland.
Michael does not sleep with kids. He sleeps on the floor. I don't know why people always seem to forget that.
Also, the parents that go to Neverland know everything that is going on. They are probably a room away from Michael's room. There's nothing secret at Neverland.
Michael would never want a child to drink. Read this:
Perhaps you'd be interested in learning more about the case than making ignorant remarks about the defense? Since you don't know why the defense brought those kids forward, I'll explain.
A while ago (during the prosecution phase), the prosecution put on the stand several "witnesses" saying that they saw Michael molest Joe, John, and Chris (examples). The defense called Joe, John, and Chris. All three said that the witnesses lied, meaning that they were never molested. What does this mean? That the prosecution's own witnesses are liars and obviously had something to gain: getting back at the guy who bankrupted them, because Michael put 4 out of 5 witnesses in bankruptcy.
Read this:
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2337/2/
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2374/2/
The mother's former attorney, Larry Feldman, is a liar, for sure. He's the guy she went to before going to the police or anyone else.
On the stand, Feldman said he believed the family and that they are credible. At lunch with Larry King and another guy, he told them that he didn't believe the family and thought they were going after money.
Unfortunately, the judge never let the testimony of King and the other guy in, for some strange reason. Read this:
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2376/2/
Read this:
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2444/2/
Read this as well:
That documentary said absolutely nothing about sex or molestation. That documentary confirms what Michael has been saying all the time: the kids sleep on the bed, he sleeps on the floor. Actually, the kids sleep everywhere...on the sofa, bed, infront of the TV, on the rides at Neverland, etc.
The documentary confirms the truth: Neverland is an extremely laid back place where you can pretty much do everything you want to do. You can eat whatever you want to eat, you can sleep wherever you want to sleep, etc.
The reason why Michael went ahead with the documentary is because he has nothing to hide. His story has never changed. No pedophile would ever tell the public "I let kids sleep in my bed."
You're right. He shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. It put him in a bad position.
That's too general of a question. Who is the man and under what circumstances is the sleepover? How well do I know the man? My first thought is I would never do that to my child, but that's not what is going on at Neverland.
Michael does not sleep with kids. He sleeps on the floor. I don't know why people always seem to forget that.
Also, the parents that go to Neverland know everything that is going on. They are probably a room away from Michael's room. There's nothing secret at Neverland.
Michael would never want a child to drink. Read this:
Perhaps you'd be interested in learning more about the case than making ignorant remarks about the defense? Since you don't know why the defense brought those kids forward, I'll explain.
A while ago (during the prosecution phase), the prosecution put on the stand several "witnesses" saying that they saw Michael molest Joe, John, and Chris (examples). The defense called Joe, John, and Chris. All three said that the witnesses lied, meaning that they were never molested. What does this mean? That the prosecution's own witnesses are liars and obviously had something to gain: getting back at the guy who bankrupted them, because Michael put 4 out of 5 witnesses in bankruptcy.
Read this:
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2337/2/
http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2374/2/
The problem with all this, Pennypacker, is that you are biased. You won't even consider the option that he's guilty. I stated before that I am not sure if he did it or not, I wasn't there and neither were you, so how can you be so sure. And you are so quick to condemn people who believe the prosecution, but you believe every word of the defense. That seems a little hypocritical. I'm trying to stay neutral on the issue, and I will let the jury decide. I just wish people like you would look at it with an open mind, instead of just stubbornly following only your own beliefs. What if he actually is guilty? It's hard to believe, but it could possibly be true. And to answer your questions about letting my kid sleep with an older man, I don't care who he is, there would be no way in hell I would EVER let my kid sleep in a bed or even in the same room with a man, unless he was a relative, and even then I would be extremely cautious. I sure wouldn't let him sleep with a celebrity, especially one who's been accused of this kind of thing before. It just bothers me that you think every one on the prosecution's side are all liars, and the defense's side are all telling nothing but the truth
real talk pennypacker
and i wasnt talking about the guy attorney. there was a woman attorney.and the accuser's mother threatened her and said if the attorney said anything(because she lied about insurance fraud and admited it to her), then she'd have her killed cuz her husband's brother is in a mafia.
lmao @ calcuo being too strict about the topic.
and i wasnt talking about the guy attorney. there was a woman attorney.and the accuser's mother threatened her and said if the attorney said anything(because she lied about insurance fraud and admited it to her), then she'd have her killed cuz her husband's brother is in a mafia.
lmao @ calcuo being too strict about the topic.
You don't know me. I've repeatedly said that I am open to the possibility that he did something just like I am open to the possibility that any other human did this or that. For example, if the police came to me and told me that they think my sister is a serial killer, I'd say: show me your evidence, and I am willing to think of her as guilty based on that evidence.
The same goes for Michael. If the evidence is there, I want to know about it. If there's no evidence there, stop telling me he's guilty.
So far, I've seen no evidence that shows he's guilty. I've seen evidence that shows he's strange and needs to change his ways, but that's another story.
The same goes for Michael. If the evidence is there, I want to know about it. If there's no evidence there, stop telling me he's guilty.
So far, I've seen no evidence that shows he's guilty. I've seen evidence that shows he's strange and needs to change his ways, but that's another story.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.