|
|
Post by davidruffinlover on Jun 22, 2005 22:31:26 GMT -5
Totally off topic here & I apologize but I love my new avatar!!!!!!!! Thanks for the help with it Ed =D What ya'll think? Lol, had to ask.
|
|
Elbridge
Tempt Fanatic
Elbridge "Al" Bryant
Posts: 28
|
Post by Elbridge on Jun 22, 2005 22:54:42 GMT -5
Glad you like it, DRL...  Ed |
|
|
|
Post by davidruffinlover on Jun 22, 2005 23:16:29 GMT -5
Like it? I love it!!!! You rock =D .*)
|
|
|
|
Post by davidruffinlover on Jun 22, 2005 23:23:42 GMT -5
Ok, repeating myself here....Ed's a god cause I love my icon!!!! Sorry, done with the praising I promise....least on this thread =) Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by jusme on Jun 22, 2005 23:25:50 GMT -5
Um, you're not very familiar with my posts are you? I'm guessing you're both young (under 18) and female...which is why it's best that I continue biting my tongue. Let's just say we're at opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to Mr. Jackson and leave it at that. Good day. ;D Beej, I say speak your mind, don't hold back. Get it all out there. I'll still love Mike, anyway. Despite the fact that there's a few tools missing from his shed. |
|
|
|
Post by jusme on Jun 22, 2005 23:27:12 GMT -5
Totally off topic here & I apologize but I love my new avatar!!!!!!!! Thanks for the help with it Ed =D What ya'll think? Lol, had to ask. Baby girl, you must a serious thing for Leon... |
|
|
|
Post by davidruffinlover on Jun 22, 2005 23:50:45 GMT -5
I do have a serious thing for Leon....how'd ya guess?! Lol. Can't help it....the man is fine!! Back to the topic of the thread........MJ may have a few tools missing in his head & anyone say anything you like, speak your minds!! I was just stating my opinion earlier so by all means state yours =D
|
|
|
|
Post by lightdion on Jun 23, 2005 2:56:07 GMT -5
Michael is an amazing PERFORMER, and nobody or nothing can take that away!!
But if I seen him on the streets, I would have to run away first then come back with those looks...
Just keeping it real, Y'all!!
|
|
|
|
Post by davidruffinlover on Jun 23, 2005 3:37:08 GMT -5
Ok, off topic yet again, so sorry. But me & lightdion are the only ones on right now!! It's 2:30am here & I've been up for hours to read posts!! Granted thats cause I am the loser I am, plus I swear I have insomnia so I don't tend to sleep much =)
|
|
|
|
Post by Beej on Jun 23, 2005 5:14:55 GMT -5
"This was a dose of reality for Michael."Was it really? I ask because I don't see where any lessons were learned. Michael will still claim that he's the true victim in all this...a victim of both salacious media scrutiny and a vindictive D.A.'s office; his die-hard fans will continue to support him and likely dismiss any future allegations made against him; the people in his inner circle will continue to tell him whatever he wants to hear -- further reinforcing his warped sense of reality -- and he'll likely continue to have abnormal interactions with children. As long as he feels he's doing nothing wrong -- and those closest to him continue to enable his fantasy -- nothing will change. At least, I haven't seen any indication on his part that he has re-thought the whole "middle-aged man playing/sleeping with young boys" scenario. "I think it should have been a reality check over overly zealous prosecutors. They have no right to waste tax money on such shakey cases."The D.A.'s office has an obligation to serve the interests of their community. I'd agree this family has *a few* issues which made them less-than-desirable witnesses. This was not the result of a lawsuit brought by the family, however. No one was seeking monetary damages from Mr. Jackson. This trial was the result of a criminal investigation launched by the DA's office after Michael appeared on TV -- holding hands with and caressing a young boy of no relation to him -- and admitted he frequently shares his bed with similar young boys.  To not look into the matter further would be irresponsible and negligent on their part...whether we're talking about Michael Jackson or Joe Shmoe. Overzealous? I don't know...I'm not in Tom Sneddon's head. What I do know is that Michael Jackson paid a hefty price to buy the silence of an accuser more than a decade ago...an accuser who was not only able to describe Mr. Jackson's genitals in detail, but whose testimony mirrored the current accuser's in many respects. If I were the lead prosecutor in the original case and watched a celebrity buy his way out...essentially quashing damning evidence that pointed strongly toward guilt...I imagine I'd carry a sick feeling around for quite awhile. I also imagine I'd be chomping at the bit to get another crack at him. The fact that the current accuser's family has a questioinable history does not speak to whether or not the allegations made against Mr. Jackson are true. It apparently did provide the jury with enough doubt to dismiss the claims, however. That's unfortunate considering that predators generally seek kids from dysfunctional (i.e., "non-traditional") families for that very reason. We weren't on the jury, though, nor did we hear all the evidence...so I have to accept their verdict in this case. It doesn't change my opinion of Michael Jackson in the least, mind you, but it does show just how desperate this DA's office was to get another shot at him. So, overzealous? Maybe. Knowing what they did from the evidence in the first case, however, and listening to Michael Jackson's own admissions in the TV documentary, how could they not investigate further? If you take a poll of Americans from coast to coast and ask them if this case should've been tried, you might be very surprised at the answer. Personally, I complain about a lot of things my tax dollars are spent on...trying to put pedophiles behind bars is not one of them. "Its the second time they rushed to judgement in a major profile case without having all their ducks in a row..."The first being?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jun 23, 2005 6:19:28 GMT -5
"This was a dose of reality for Michael."Was it really? I ask because I don't see where any lessons were learned. Michael will still claim that he's the true victim in all this...a victim of both salacious media scrutiny and a vindictive D.A.'s office; his die-hard fans will continue to support him and likely dismiss any future allegations made against him; the people in his inner circle will continue to tell him whatever he wants to hear -- further reinforcing his warped sense of reality -- and he'll likely continue to have abnormal interactions with children. As long as he feels he's doing nothing wrong -- and those closest to him continue to enable his fantasy -- nothing will change. At least, I haven't seen any indication on his part that he has re-thought the whole "middle-aged man playing/sleeping with young boys" scenario. "I think it should have been a reality check over overly zealous prosecutors. They have no right to waste tax money on such shakey cases."The D.A.'s office has an obligation to serve the interests of their community. I'd agree this family has *a few* issues which made them less-than-desirable witnesses. This was not the result of a lawsuit brought by the family, however. No one was seeking monetary damages from Mr. Jackson. This trial was the result of a criminal investigation launched by the DA's office after Michael appeared on TV -- holding hands with and caressing a young boy of no relation to him -- and admitted he frequently shares his bed with similar young boys. To not look into the matter further would be irresponsible and negligent on their part...whether we're talking about Michael Jackson or Joe Shmoe. Overzealous? I don't know...I'm not in Tom Sneddon's head. What I do know is that Michael Jackson paid a hefty price to buy the silence of an accuser more than a decade ago...an accuser who was not only able to describe Mr. Jackson's genitals in detail, but whose testimony mirrored the current accuser's in many respects. If I were the lead prosecutor in the original case and watched a celebrity buy his way out...essentially quashing damning evidence that pointed strongly toward guilt...I imagine I'd carry a sick feeling around for quite awhile. I also imagine I'd be chomping at the bit to get another crack at him. The fact that the current accuser's family has a questioinable history does not speak to whether or not the allegations made against Mr. Jackson are true. It apparently did provide the jury with enough doubt to dismiss the claims, however. That's unfortunate considering that predators generally seek kids from dysfunctional (i.e., "non-traditional") families for that very reason. We weren't on the jury, though, nor did we hear all the evidence...so I have to accept their verdict in this case. It doesn't change my opinion of Michael Jackson in the least, mind you, but it does show just how desperate this DA's office was to get another shot at him. So, overzealous? Maybe. Knowing what they did from the evidence in the first case, however, and listening to Michael Jackson's own admissions in the TV documentary, how could they not investigate further? If you take a poll of Americans from coast to coast and ask them if this case should've been tried, you might be very surprised at the answer. Personally, I complain about a lot of things my tax dollars are spent on...trying to put pedophiles behind bars is not one of them. "Its the second time they rushed to judgement in a major profile case without having all their ducks in a row..."The first being? The first being OJ Simpson. I don't care whether he or Michael was guilty or innocent. My thought is that they were in such a rush to convict and possibly make a name for themselves they did not do all the things they should have to get these cases ready for prosecution. I'm sure there have been other cases but since the OJ thing, it would seem they would have taken their time and made sure their case was strong enough to go to trial. You can't tell me they didn't know they were up against a formidible foe in Michael when they attempted to prosecute this case. Having seen what happened in the Oj case and even in the RObert BLake case, should have made them wary of coming in not ready or not quite sure of their case. Seeing all the mistakes made in the OJ case leads me to believe that there were too many cooks in the soup and someone in the prosecuter's office was looking to raise his stock rather than present a good case for prosecution. Sometimes I think they under estimate the intelligence of the people in this country to determine guilt or innocence with common sense. How do we know that the money he paid the first time was not to keep his guilt a secret but to protect his reputaion and not have all the mess detailed for public consumption? Just because he paid them doesn't mean he was guilty. I do think that Michael was stupid to have put himself in this position again and it does lead one to think there were some improprieties going on there for sure. But I do think that this time he saw that he just might go to jail I don't think he was quite as sure he was going to get off. The other thing I saw was his family, meaning his Mom and Dad having a huge say so in this situation and maybe possibly coming back into his life which would be a good thing I think. I don't think his family were enablers. I think Michael shut them out of his life, save for his mother and now he has let them back in out of necessity. So I do think we'll see a more humble Michael, if not at least a somewhat more contrite Michael. So yes, I think they were over zealous in their attempt to get him. If they wanted him, they had all the time in the world to make a strong case. They did not do that, therefore we must accept the verdict of the jury in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Gua on Jun 23, 2005 7:45:29 GMT -5
So it written so it shall be done! 
|
|
|
|
Post by tabby on Jun 23, 2005 9:13:34 GMT -5
((Beej)) First, I wish the mallet smiley were still in place. Of course, Mr. Sneddon ans his team were overly zealous -- because they were upset that the first time they thought they had a case against Michael, the accusers were not interested in "justice" but in money. In the latest case the prosecution believed they had witnesses disgruntled enough to do whatever it takes to have Michael locked up. The prosecution seeking revenge for their failure to accomplish that goal relied on skimpy evidence the second time because they wanted to destroy Michael. Had they not been too zealous, they should have noticed that their case was not solid, and that any decent jury would have rejected the Arvizo's as scheming, mean-spirited, lying freaks. |
|
|
|
Post by MissTara on Jun 23, 2005 10:09:55 GMT -5
Beej, Have I told you lately that your such a doll!? |
|
|
|
Post by tabby on Jun 23, 2005 10:14:14 GMT -5
Beej, Have I told you lately that your such a doll!? ((Tara)) Stop being nice to someone who doesn't agree with your grams!!!!! Where's the family pride? |
|
