Legal motions highly suggest m Jackso...
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Juggs Judy

AOL

#103 Feb 21, 2014
goodvibrations wrote:
<quoted text>
MJ did nothing to get away with. The jury weren't MJ fans. When are you going to wakeup it's all in your head and not Michael Jackson's pants? Never!
What proof do you have aside from Jackson's verbal denial that he did not abuse boys? How do you know that he did not? How do you know that Jackson didn't lie? Would you care to explain why Jackson did not adequately explain his actions of taking unrelated little boys to bed with him to the general public, or in a court of law?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#104 Feb 21, 2014
Juggs Judy wrote:
<quoted text>
What proof do you have aside from Jackson's verbal denial that he did not abuse boys? How do you know that he did not? How do you know that Jackson didn't lie? Would you care to explain why Jackson did not adequately explain his actions of taking unrelated little boys to bed with him to the general public, or in a court of law?
The FBI and police investigations, the court documents and the trial outcome. They all provided evidence that no boy was abused.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#105 Feb 21, 2014
goodvibrations wrote:
<quoted text>
The FBI and police investigations, the court documents and the trial outcome. They all provided evidence that no boy was abused.
The FBI files raised red flags. For example, what strange noises did the social worker hear from Jackson's compartment he shared with a little boy that made her report it to the conductor?

The police investigation definitely did not acquit Jackson. The investigation uncovered shocking amounts of evidence. For example, why would a grown man keep a nude photo of a little boy he slept with?

The court documents did not clear Jackson's name. The transcripts only show how testimionies and documents were ignored, by a starstruck jury.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#106 Feb 21, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
The FBI files raised red flags. For example, what strange noises did the social worker hear from Jackson's compartment he shared with a little boy that made her report it to the conductor?
The police investigation definitely did not acquit Jackson. The investigation uncovered shocking amounts of evidence. For example, why would a grown man keep a nude photo of a little boy he slept with?
The court documents did not clear Jackson's name. The transcripts only show how testimionies and documents were ignored, by a starstruck jury.
You tell me why would a grown man keep a nude photo of a little boy he slept with?

Where is your evidence that that MJ slept in the same bed as Jimmy Safechuck, let alone that it was an actual photo of him? No where does it state that it definitely was him.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#110 Feb 23, 2014
goodvibrations wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me why would a grown man keep a nude photo of a little boy he slept with?
Where is your evidence that that MJ slept in the same bed as Jimmy Safechuck, let alone that it was an actual photo of him? No where does it state that it definitely was him.
Either you were born stupid, or Celebrity Worship Syndrome make you stupid. But I can't believe you don't see what's literally wrong with the entire picture. Only a pedophile would keep a nude photo of a boy he slept with. The child is believed to be Jonathan Spence, and it doesn't matter who he is. Michael had other photos of nude and seminude children and admitted to sleeping with a lot of children, who in turn admitted to sleeping with him.

On page two of this set of legal documents, it discusses the photo of the naked child, another photo of a child with his bikini pants partially pulled down, all the while holding an umbrella, and the NAMBLA-recommended books of nude and seminude children.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...

If I learned somebody had a nude photo of a child, I'd call CPS on the spot. I wouldn't care how famous the person was.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#111 Feb 23, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Either you were born stupid, or Celebrity Worship Syndrome make you stupid. But I can't believe you don't see what's literally wrong with the entire picture. Only a pedophile would keep a nude photo of a boy he slept with. The child is believed to be Jonathan Spence, and it doesn't matter who he is. Michael had other photos of nude and seminude children and admitted to sleeping with a lot of children, who in turn admitted to sleeping with him.
On page two of this set of legal documents, it discusses the photo of the naked child, another photo of a child with his bikini pants partially pulled down, all the while holding an umbrella, and the NAMBLA-recommended books of nude and seminude children.
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...
If I learned somebody had a nude photo of a child, I'd call CPS on the spot. I wouldn't care how famous the person was.
The pictures that MJ had of children were not classified as pornography. A photograph that resembled Jonathan Spence does not mean it was him nor does it mean that MJ slept in the same bed with Spence. All the photographs of children came in art books. All these matters were discussed during the trial and proved that they weren't pedophile related matter. That is why MJ will go down in history for being a very talented performer and songwriter that influenced generations after him. He is not remembered for being the pedophile that YOU try to make him out to have been Troll Lol Lol.

“Waiting for f'loons to wake up”

Since: Dec 06

Goofybaboon's Not Listening

#113 Feb 23, 2014
Proove it was art by having it "hanging" on your facebook's background wall for at least a year, you complete trolltard. While you're at that, put up your "zero" Michael Jackson as one of your favs. and then see how real you are as a fan.

You are a fake and a troll.
Juggs Judy

AOL

#114 Feb 24, 2014
goodvibrations wrote:
<quoted text>
The FBI and police investigations, the court documents and the trial outcome. They all provided evidence that no boy was abused.
You do realize that your emotional reactions are not meant to be used when reviewing and analyzing a denial or series of them.

Do you automatically believe every single denial Jackson made, no matter how implausible or how much flip-flopping he did?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#115 Feb 24, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>The FBI files raised red flags. For example, what strange noises did the social worker hear from Jackson's compartment he shared with a little boy that made her report it to the conductor?

The police investigation definitely did not acquit Jackson. The investigation uncovered shocking amounts of evidence. For example, why would a grown man keep a nude photo of a little boy he slept with?

The court documents did not clear Jackson's name. The transcripts only show how testimionies and documents were ignored, by a starstruck jury.
The jury were NOT MJ fans.

MJ is a highly respected man in death and his accusers will go down in history for being LIARS.

“Waiting for f'loons to wake up”

Since: Dec 06

Goofybaboon's Not Listening

#116 Feb 24, 2014
goodvibrations wrote:
<quoted text>
The jury were NOT MJ fans.
MJ is a highly respected man in death and his accusers will go down in history for being LIARS.
^^^Phony^^^

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#117 Feb 25, 2014
goodvibrations wrote:
<quoted text>
The pictures that MJ had of children were not classified as pornography. A photograph that resembled Jonathan Spence does not mean it was him nor does it mean that MJ slept in the same bed with Spence. All the photographs of children came in art books. All these matters were discussed during the trial and proved that they weren't pedophile related matter. That is why MJ will go down in history for being a very talented performer and songwriter that influenced generations after him. He is not remembered for being the pedophile that YOU try to make him out to have been Troll Lol Lol.
I stand amazed you would try and justify why a grown man would want, let alone keep, a nude photo of one of the special friends he slept with.

According to Kenneth Lanning's profile of a pedophile, those perverts like to own such material because it's not illegal. And funny you should mention the jury. The foreman admitted he refused to look at key evidence, such as the NAMBLA-recommended books, becaue he didn't want it to effect his decision.

I wish you would wake up to reality.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#118 Feb 26, 2014
It's because they bought into the image. They forget that MJ cultivated his "nice boy, can't do no wrong" image from perfectly produced PR and made himself so eccentric and made people feel so bad for his "horrid childhood" that it made it easier for him to have defenders who were blind to his crimes.
sally sali

Hanoi, Vietnam

#119 Feb 26, 2014
Michael Jackson would never officially say he was not a molester.

http://www.noithats.net/tu-tai-lieu-van-phong...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
MJfacts reigns! 5 hr Spotted Wee 1
Vindihate was meant to fail! It's no more 5 hr Spotted Wee 1
News Peter King calls Michael Jackson 'child molester' (Jul '09) 16 hr roymoores tightie... 7,362
Another house of horrors owned by Pedo Pan in n... Sun Spotted Wee 1
How can anyone think Wade Robson is lying? (Jul '13) Sun Spotted Wee 12
Michael Jackson's lover tells all (Jan '11) Nov 13 Spotted Wee 25
Deborah Ffrench troll for yrs Nov 10 Spotted Wee 1
More from around the web