Michael Jackson is Innocent

Our lounge for socialising and for all general topics in good taste. Including all SillyDog701 related issues.

Postby Shark Daddy » Tue 22 Jun, 2004 2:11 pm

Well, since we're reviving this thread...

OneVoice wrote:I believe Michael Jackson is not the kind of person to harm children. Look at all the charitable work he has done over the years helping kids with cancer and aids among other things. He has donated millions of his own money into more organisations than any other person. The only other person I can think of who comes even close to the contributions of Michael Jackson was the late Princess Diana.

Antony wrote:
keith wrote:i say he should be in jail, no matter what yal say. thats my opinion, ...
That's not called opinion.
In public forums/fora, you'd better include any supporting arguments to back what you said.

A claim, such as the one keith made, can be either a fact (something that can be proven true or false, such as a statistic), an opinion (some idea that is reflective of one's bias), or an argument (if you provide supporting facts toward your opinion, it becomes an argument). keith gave his opinion.

I'm just curious. Why are we taking sides in this? We don't know if he's guilty or innocent. There is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that points to Mr. Jackson's guilt. His character traits are arguably evidence that he would not commit such acts. Have some faith in the American legal system to uncover the truth.

As for charitable contributions to children, I do not see how that is evidence of how he wouldn't harm a child. One could argue that it is evidence of the fact that he's obsessed with children. Jacko is also not the most charitable celebrity out there, and Diana does not come close; she surpasses him by leaps and bounds. But she can't dance like Jacko.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8
Shark Daddy
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 11:19 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby OneVoice » Tue 22 Jun, 2004 7:04 pm

I'm just curious. Why are we taking sides in this? We don't know if he's guilty or innocent. There is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that points to Mr. Jackson's guilt. His character traits are arguably evidence that he would not commit such acts. Have some faith in the American legal system to uncover the truth.


I am quite happy to argue that there has been no real solid evidence that he has abused children in the past and present. Discounting the baby dangling incident. That was a one-off mistake on MJ's judgement. But there is no concrete evidence that points towards his guilt. The procecution's investigative team have not found a stitch and they will probably be looking 'til they turn blue.

As for charitable contributions to children, I do not see how that is evidence of how he wouldn't harm a child. One could argue that it is evidence of the fact that he's obsessed with children.


He loves children IMO. If he's obsessed with anything about children it is the pure innocence of a child that draws him. Here is a man who's childhood was taken from him before he even got a chance to experience it. As a child superstar in the 60's and 70's, Michael Jackson never got time to play with other kids. He is really trying to make up for what he didn't have all those years ago as a child. His willingness to help and heal children has been right at the forfront of his psyche.

It is the terrible allegations of molestation that has ruined his good name. Unfounded to date, and how much more of this will he have to go through? In 93 no substantial evidence was found by criminal investigaters. That news went largely unreported by the media who chose instead to report the many rumours and stories by people just wanting to cash in on the MJ gravey train. The media will report anything whether true or not to boost ratings.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
OneVoice
junior member
junior member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue 22 Jun, 2004 1:44 am

Postby Antony » Tue 22 Jun, 2004 8:38 pm

Shark Daddy wrote:
Antony wrote:
keith wrote:i say he should be in jail, no matter what yal say. thats my opinion, ...
That's not called opinion.
In public forums/fora, you'd better include any supporting arguments to back what you said.

A claim, such as the one keith made, can be either a fact (something that can be proven true or false, such as a statistic), an opinion (some idea that is reflective of one's bias), or an argument (if you provide supporting facts toward your opinion, it becomes an argument). keith gave his opinion.
Just "he should be in jail" and followed by "no matter what [you] say"?
Is that all?
Perhaps you can call that opinion?

That won't keep the conversation going at all. and very annoying.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.8
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15483
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby OneVoice » Tue 22 Jun, 2004 10:10 pm

I sugest people read a book called 'Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations' By Geraldine Hughes. She was the legel secretary for Barry Rothman at the time of the 93 allegations. Mr. Rothman was the accuser's lawyer. Geraldine would have had the best seat in the house to find out what really went on during that time.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608
OneVoice
junior member
junior member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue 22 Jun, 2004 1:44 am

Postby Antony » Sat 18 Sep, 2004 9:28 am

From "Jackson faces his accusers in court" - News.com.au 19th Sept 2004
Jackson's lawyer called the mother of his alleged victim, a 12-year-old cancer patient, a money-hungry mercenary who had previously accused her ex-husband of molesting her children.

"She made statements that her children can sue Michael Jackson after they turn 18," Jackson's lawyer said. "She said she is not after money then she says she is after money."
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15483
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby djv1 » Sat 18 Sep, 2004 10:29 pm

I really wonder what is going to happen in this case, I wonder if he is going to be able to buy his way out of this one?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Firefox/0.9.1
Dustin
User avatar
djv1
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed 14 Jan, 2004 6:02 pm

Postby Antony » Sat 18 Sep, 2004 11:39 pm

djv1 wrote:I really wonder what is going to happen in this case,
The truth will be known, and Michael Jackson is innocent.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15483
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby djv1 » Mon 20 Sep, 2004 8:54 am

Can you prove that?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Firefox/0.9.1
Dustin
User avatar
djv1
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed 14 Jan, 2004 6:02 pm

Postby Antony » Mon 20 Sep, 2004 8:58 am

no, but that's what we will see in very near future.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15483
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby djv1 » Mon 20 Sep, 2004 5:32 pm

How can you tell that? I really don't know if he will get off innocent or not. I think that he may be guilty.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040626 Firefox/0.9.1
Dustin
User avatar
djv1
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Wed 14 Jan, 2004 6:02 pm

Postby Antony » Mon 20 Sep, 2004 6:44 pm

I think you should read the first post of this thread.

Of course, we need to wait for the result.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/125.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.9
User avatar
Antony
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 15483
Joined: Tue 18 Jun, 2002 11:36 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Dont know

Postby Ron Williams » Fri 24 Sep, 2004 10:34 pm

Although the community here at sillydog701 has different opinions regarding jacko's molestation charges. I believe that you can not help but be sceptical because his numerous charges in the past

:idea:
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10
User avatar
Ron Williams
BANNED
BANNED
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue 25 Nov, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Cambridge, Maryland

Postby DJGM » Sun 17 Oct, 2004 11:47 am

I believe in the old addage "innocent until proved guilty".

Meanwhile . . .

Jackson lawyer quits defence team

Singer Michael Jackson's long-time lawyer, Steve Cochran, has left the star's defence team.

Mr Jackson, who is fighting child abuse charges, said in a statement that the lawyer
had taken a "temporary leave of absence" but would still "collaborate".

"I would like to thank attorney Steve Cochran for all of the
hard work he has done on my behalf," the star said.



More at BBC News Online . . .
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 - DJGM.co.uk (ax)
SeaMonkey = Swiss Army Knife: It's versatile, reliable, and contains useful tools.
Windows Internet Explorer = Old Swiss Cheese: Full of holes, and it stinks!
User avatar
DJGM
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Wed 19 Jun, 2002 1:03 pm
Location: Manchester, England, UK

Postby Al » Mon 10 Jan, 2005 6:26 pm

I still agree with the 'ol "innocent until proved guilty" rule. If someone saw MJ doing this, then that would have solven the case in the first case, but no one saw him.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041108 Firefox/1.0
User of Firefox :ff: 3.0 on Windows XP
User avatar
Al
diamond member
diamond member
 
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri 20 Dec, 2002 1:08 pm

Old Post

Postby Ron Williams » Mon 10 Jan, 2005 7:11 pm

This was started 11/20/2003 are we going back or what?
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0
User avatar
Ron Williams
BANNED
BANNED
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue 25 Nov, 2003 9:47 am
Location: Cambridge, Maryland

PreviousNext

Return to SillyDog701 Lounge

Who is online

Registered users: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot]
cron