XYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 While I like MJ, Austin....u should know better just becoz theres no actual tangible evidence of indiscretions, doesnt mean they didnt happen actually, the most perverted criminals are so advanced that they know to cover their tracks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 While I like MJ, Austin....u should know better just becoz theres no actual tangible evidence of indiscretions, doesnt mean they didnt happen actually, the most perverted criminals are so advanced that they know to cover their tracks Well to be fair we live in a country... "Innocent until proven guilty" If its not proven alot of folks WONT believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 :lmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The description of MJ's penis (from the accuser) was DEAD ON from the photos enforcement took of MJ's privates. They just didn't allow it into court. Justsayin.. No they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 No they didn't. ..allow it in court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotboy06 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 R. Kelly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Well to be fair we live in a country... "Innocent until proven guilty" If its not proven alot of folks WONT believe. who gives a shit what the folks believe I know the burden of proof, Dayz but u cant just discount someone's verbal testimony and even tho it may not be strong enough to warrant a criminal conviction, that doesnt mean the alleged activities didnt happen. And there may be a whole host of other reasons why a criminal conviction wont be succesful...eg a stupid jury...dont forget, its judgement by peers We just have a high level of proof for criminal cases becoz we cant just go round locking up ppl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 who gives a shit what the folks believe I know the burden of proof, Dayz but u cant just discount someone's verbal testimony and even tho it may not be strong enough to warrant a criminal conviction, that doesnt mean the alleged activities didnt happen. We just have a high level of proof for criminal cases becoz we cant just go round locking up ppl Lets be real..we're talking about Austin here. He will do whatever it takes to SAVEFACE. I mean ..look who we're dealing with. You can't really be surprised by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 He was smart enough to not videotape or photograph his actions. And hunti, Ms. Janet already clocked the tea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-Uh7jYysfs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 ..allow it in court They didn't match. Almost everything from the 93 case was ALLOWED into the 2003-2005 trial. NOTHING in court was EVER mentioned about the photos took at that time matching the boys description. If the prosecution had a something that major from the 93 case, it would have not only been admitted...but it would have been the headline for days, weeks, months (even if it weren't admitted, it would have "leaked" and STILL been the headline for days, weeks, and months) They tried everything to nail him on atleast something in that trial and he was still acquitted. Don't try this with me dayz...I KNOW my facts very well concerning this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And hunti, Ms. Janet already clocked the tea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-Uh7jYysfs She was just defending her brother... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Cedric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And hunti, Ms. Janet already clocked the tea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-Uh7jYysfs Janet's comments are a bit stupid Anywaz, i dont know enough about MJ's case and while i have no idea on whether MJ did it, i still think the whole thing is inappropriate no 40yo goes round sleeping with child, i dont care how fucked up u are and how much of a childhood u missed out on theres troubles on both sides anywaz why we on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And ummm, if my memory serves me correctly, the first allegation was taken to civil court. You don't take a CRIMINAL matter to CIVIL court. That alone should tell you the family was lying about the molestation and only wanted money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 They didn't match. Almost everything from the 93 case was ALLOWED into the 2003-2005 trial. NOTHING in court was EVER mentioned about the photos took at that time matching the boys description. If the prosecution had a something that major from the 93 case, it would have not only been admitted...but it would have been the headline for days, weeks, months (even if it weren't admitted, it would have "leaked" and STILL been the headline for days, weeks, and months) They tried everything to nail him on atleast something in that trial and he was still acquitted. Don't try this with me dayz...I KNOW my facts very well concerning this. Are you okay over there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Are you okay over there? Very well, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 She was just defending her brother... Janet's comments are a bit stupid Anywaz, i dont know enough about MJ's case and while i have no idea on whether MJ did it, i still think the whole thing is inappropriate no 40yo goes round sleeping with child, i dont care how fucked up u are and how much of a childhood u missed out on theres troubles on both sides anywaz why we on this Let's cut the bullshit okay? It's not defending. It's common sense. HONESTLY. Don't over think common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Very well, thank you. That phonebook you typed said something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And ummm, if my memory serves me correctly, the first allegation was taken to civil court. You don't take a CRIMINAL matter to CIVIL court. That alone should tell you the family was lying about the molestation and only wanted money. something messy happened between the parties and they wanted to get some revenge on MJ thats what i think happened i highly doubt they wouldve pressed criminal charges, or even pursued a civil case, unless some nasty shit went down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 That phonebook you typed said something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Are you okay over there? He's fine. You're just doing too much . Leave MJ alone. We don't need Game coming in being extra shady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapade Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The description of MJ's penis (from the accuser) was DEAD ON from the photos enforcement took of MJ's privates. They just didn't allow it into court. Justsayin.. He said MJ's penis was circumcised...when it wasn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Okay ..should I change the title of this thread to.. A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ANCIENT MJ CASE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XYZ Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Let's cut the bullshit okay? It's not defending. It's common sense. HONESTLY. Don't over think common sense. I dunno I've never been in that position getting paid millions of dollars is very tempting plus not to mention all the hassles of pressing charges a civil case is much more lucrative, if u think in terms of practicality + given MJ's personality why go thru criminal charges (and get nothing out of it), when u can get tons of money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapade Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And ummm, if my memory serves me correctly, the first allegation was taken to civil court. You don't take a CRIMINAL matter to CIVIL court. That alone should tell you the family was lying about the molestation and only wanted money. They pulled a similar stunt with JC Penny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.