Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Michael Jackson

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: barry2952

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.

Posted by: evillally

First thing learned in criminal mind & behavioral course: Most pedophiles and other sexually defunct wacko's..... hetros.

Posted by: Joeychgo

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.

Posted by: MrWilson

I think the case is irrelivant,...hang him.

Posted by: MarkOfDeath

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

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.

Joey to my knowledge, they dont have magazines geared toward rapping little boys, but hey your the expert. j/k

Posted by: barry2952

The boy's a rapper?

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

The boy's a rapper?

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.

Posted by: barry2952

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.

Posted by: MonsterMark

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.

Posted by: barry2952

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.

Posted by: MonsterMark

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.

Posted by: dertyclown

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWilson

I think the case is irrelivant,...hang him.

hell f@#king ya

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

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.

Posted by: barry2952

Quote:

Originally Posted by dertyclown

hell f@#king ya

Hmmm! Did you see any credible witnesses? The jury didn't either.

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

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.

Posted by: Bob Hubbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

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.

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.

Posted by: barry2952

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.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Hmmm! Did you see any credible witnesses? The jury didn't either.

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.

Posted by: barry2952

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.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

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.

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

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.

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.

Posted by: Gruuvin8

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.

Posted by: barry2952

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.

Posted by: eL eS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gruuvin8

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.

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.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by eL eS

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.

Posted by: MrWilson

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry2952

Hmmm! Did you see any credible witnesses? The jury didn't either.

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.

Posted by: barry2952

So now you're a legal scholar? You trust nothing out of California but you foolishly trust everything out of Washington.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gruuvin8

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.

That's what Jacko is he's guilty just look how members are posting!!

Even though he was proven Innocent.

If he would have been a priest and proven innocent people would be says good for him!

Posted by: barry2952

Actually Mespock, the jury found him Not Guilty. Not innocent. There's a difference. It's all about the presentation. He who puts on the best show usually wins. The prosecutions witnesses were not credible. Laughable, but not credible.