You're wrong on all accounts.<quoted text>
Yet the legal documents freed him of any guilt and he was declared 'not guilty'? Does your stupid rant make any sense to even you even though I know you are of a low iq, but still I was thinking your iq couldn't be as worse?
And nobody made an accurate description of anything. LOL. He claimed circumstanced when that wasn't the case for example. Also, seeing someone nakedness isn't the same as molestation as a swim change among other circumstances could involve showing some skin.
And based on the characters of the people involved and how desperate they were, I wouldn't trust them one bit. The father for example was an extortionist who had approached MJ to fund his script writing dream which he (MJ) declined. The molestation charges only came up after this. LOL. At that point, MJ used to sometimes lodge in their house. You can get someone drugged up to achieve what you want. Desperate people by nature never give up and MJ was just too naive to have put himself in such a mess to start with.
Secondly, tom sneddon is a known crook who forged evidence in this case and had a personal vendetta against Jackson. Only dummies like you will believe there weren't any schemes involved and things were exactly as told by tom sneddon, the snake.
A guilty man does not keep NAMBLA-recommended books of nude and semi-nude boys. Nor does he keep photos of the special friends he slept with in the nude.
There is no mention of foreskin in the legal documents. There is, however, quite a discussion about a mark, on his penis, which the child had accurately drawn and described.
The D.A.'s reasons for bringing the matching drawing, description, and photos of Michael's penis into the courtroom.
The defense's response. He never denies it was a match. He only said the drawing and description, without the photos, would be hearsay. This is hysterically funny because the D.A. planned to introduce all of them, together, in court.
Here is the discussion, between attorneys and Judge Melville. He said it was not hearsay. It did match. Before you criticize the site, MJ Facts was kind enough to obtain and publicly post the court transcripts. If you don't believe they are real, I'll give you the site where you can order them. But at this point, you'll have to pay money.
According to Feldman, in his testimony, the Arvizos never wanted money (pages 221 and 233), and the only reason Jordan Chandler's parents received money is because Michael wanted them silenced (pages 385-389).
Tom Sneddon did not forge legal documents. He would have been called out, for it. You can go to the Santa Barbara County website and read all of them, yourself.
Read them and weep.