Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 189

Thread: Michael Jackson married his nanny!

  1. #16
    Elite Member mistify's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    in the twilight zone.
    Posts
    4,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    What, for convenience? I highly doubt theyr'e boning unless she has a 10 year old boy penis in her purse or something.

    Why did he marry Lisa Marie Presley? She tought she could "fix him"

    Why did he marry his dermatologist? Cuz she wanted to bear him kids, and sold them to him like cattle.



    Yeah, and after 2 years she gets half of his dwindling estate.



    Oh he has lots of feelings.. for little boys. He doesn't mind screwing over lots of other people on the way either.. employees.. Katrina charity cases.. sultans.. shieks...anybody he can bilk or use...

    and frankly, anybody who hacks his face up to look like an albino alien has already done all the dehumanizing to himself.



    ...because Jacko LOVES it when people speculate and yap about him. He lets fantards and other assorted twits freak out for a few months and then lets his people leak it.

    Whoopdedoo, Jacko has another sham marriage.. color us all surprised.. he probably has an album coming out.


    I am jumping up and down and clapping, I cannot believe people still defend this guy.
    "Shit, I think I just confused myself. QUICK! Somebody hand me chalk, a chalkboard and Will Hunting's brain!" michael k -dlisted

  2. #17
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mistify View Post
    I am jumping up and down and clapping, I cannot believe people still defend this guy.
    I cannot believe people still think they are justified in talking mess about someone, as if they know him.

  3. #18
    Elite Member DontMindMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bychance View Post
    I cannot believe people still think they are justified in talking mess about someone, as if they know him.
    I don't think I'm justified in talking mess about people, I do however feel justified in ragging on a monster who prays on innocent children.

  4. #19
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DontMindMe View Post
    I don't think I'm justified in talking mess about people, I do however feel justified in ragging on a monster who prays on innocent children.
    At the end of the day, the facts boil down to this:


    Anybody who genuinely believes that Michael Jackson was guilty simply does not know enough about the subject to offer an informed opinion.

  5. #20
    Elite Member DontMindMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,504

    Default


  6. #21
    Elite Member CherryDarling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Little Detroit
    Posts
    14,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bychance View Post
    At the end of the day, the facts boil down to this:


    Anybody who genuinely believes that Michael Jackson was guilty simply does not know enough about the subject to offer an informed opinion.
    Oh really? Well, call me ignorant, or one who "talks mess"...fact of the matter is--child molestation isn't that tough of a subject to understand.
    Mischief. Mayhem. Tattoos. Soap.

  7. #22
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bychance View Post
    I cannot believe people still think they are justified in talking mess about someone, as if they know him.
    I can't believe people still think they're justifying in defending him, as if they know him.

    Quote Originally Posted by bychance View Post
    Anybody who genuinely believes that Michael Jackson was guilty simply does not know enough about the subject to offer an informed opinion.
    LOL what an arrogant (and ultimately self serving) statement to make. There are PLENTY of qualified professionals in various fields involving abused children who've been screaming from the hilltops that he's as guilty as sin.

    I'll take the word of THAT educated crowd over the smug assurances of some nebulous internet Jacko fanfreak.

    *laughs*
    Last edited by Tati; November 13th, 2007 at 11:13 AM.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #23
    Elite Member CherryDarling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Little Detroit
    Posts
    14,080

    Default

    Thank you Grimm.
    Mischief. Mayhem. Tattoos. Soap.

  9. #24
    Elite Member DontMindMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    LOL what an arrogant (and ultimately self serving) statement to make. There are PLENTY of qualified professionals in various fields involving abused children who've been screaming from the hilltops that he's as guilty as sin.

    I'll take the word of THAT educated crowd over the smug assurances of some nebulous internet Jacko fanfreak.

    *laughs*
    I wanted to say something so badly, but couldn't find the words. Thanks Grimm, you rock!

  10. #25
    Elite Member Gen X EJC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    BIAB's Freakshow
    Posts
    2,940

    Default

    ooooooh, SNAP!

    Someone needs to introduce this girl to Evan Ross so there's a chance her MJ love would be reciprocated...
    The Gen X Eurotrash Jetsetters Club:
    A place for internationally minded celebrity haterz to come together in peace and harmony

  11. #26
    Elite Member VenusInFauxFurs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Back in the boxed wine.
    Posts
    21,277

    Default

    ^^
    When your daughter plays "House," she pretends to be an annoying doctor with a pill-addiction and a limp.

  12. #27
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    LOL what an arrogant (and ultimately self serving) statement to make. There are PLENTY of qualified professionals in various fields involving abused children who've been screaming from the hilltops that he's as guilty as sin.

    I'll take the word of THAT educated crowd over the smug assurances of some nebulous internet Jacko fanfreak.

    *laughs*
    And what does qualified professionals in various fields involving abused children have to do with this particular case in regards to Michael Jackson? How would they know he is guilty as sin ...based on what? Did they themselves interact with the accusers and their families? Are you implying that because they have general knowledge in the field, that presumably means it is relevant to the Michael Jackson case? Anyone who actually thinks Gavin Arvizo and Jordan Chandler were victims of abuse gets a *laugh* from me.

    An educated crowd who has no participation and knowledge of a specific case does not warrant credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by prnjcq7 View Post
    Oh really? Well, call me ignorant, or one who "talks mess"...fact of the matter is--child molestation isn't that tough of a subject to understand.
    This is not about child molestation in general, and that is where (and what) people fail to understand.

  13. #28
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bychance View Post
    And what does qualified professionals in various fields involving abused children have to do with this particular case in regards to Michael Jackson?
    Oh I dunno, experience with courtroom testimony involving abused children, behavioral analysis, YEARS of experience in dealing with the subtleties of abused children, their environment and accusers? Just a fucking guess.

    How would they know he is guilty as sin ...based on what?
    Read above.

    Did they themselves interact with the accusers and their families? Are you implying that because they have general knowledge in the field, that presumably means it is relevant to the Michael Jackson case?
    Read above, and I'd like to point out that they at least have the EDUCATION and TRAINING necessary to be able to comment on what is presented, unlike certain internet messageboard posters who think that their mere fantardism is somehow a heavenly proclamation on the subject.

    Anyone who actually thinks Gavin Arvizo and Jordan Chandler were victims of abuse gets a *laugh* from me.
    Anybody who thinks their laymans opinion on Jacko's case, based on skewed obsession and obvious fanboard rants holds more weight than the previously mentioned PROFESSIONALS is in serious need of some thorazine.

    An educated crowd who has no participation and knowledge of a specific case does not warrant credibility.
    A jacko fantard who can't even construct a proper sentence warrants even less.

    This is not about child molestation in general, and that is where (and what) people fail to understand.
    Oh no, it was just on the specific subject of child molestation.

    Here, let me post something for you and you tell me which aspect DOES NOT apply to Wacko Jacko:

    Characteristics of a Pedophile :

    Often the pedophile is male and over 30 years of age.
    Single or with few friends in his age group.
    If married, the relationship is more "companion" based with no sexual relations.
    He is often vague about time gaps in employment which may indicate a loss in employment for questionable reasons or possible past incarceration.

    Pedophiles Like Child-like Activities:

    He is often fascinated with children and child activities appearing to prefer those activities to adult oriented activities.
    He will often refer to children in pure or angelic terms using descriptives like innocent, heavenly, divine, pure, and other words that describe children but seem inappropriate and exaggerated.
    He has hobbies that are child-like such as collecting popular expensive toys, keeping reptiles or exotic pets, or building plane and car models.

    Pedophiles Often Prefer Children Close to Puberty:

    Pedophiles often have a specific age of child they target. Some prefer younger children, some older.
    Often his environment or a special room will be decorated in child-like decor and will appeal to the age and sex of the child he is trying to entice.
    Many pedophiles often prefer children close to puberty who are sexually inexperienced, but curious about sex.

    Pedophiles Work Around Children:

    The pedophile will often be employed in a position that involves daily contact with children. If not employed, he will put himself in a position to do volunteer work with children, often in a supervisory capacity such as sports coaching, contact sport instruction, unsupervised tutoring or a position where he has the opportunity to spend unsupervised time with a child.

    The Target Child:

    The pedophile often seeks out shy, handicapped, and withdrawn children, or those who come from troubled homes or under privileged homes. He then showers them with attention, gifts, taunting them with trips to desirable places like amusement parks, zoo's, concerts, the beach and other such places.

    Manipulation of the Innocent:

    Pedophiles work to master their manipulative skills and often unleash them on troubled children by first becoming their friend, building the the child's self esteem. They may refer to the child as special or mature, appealing to their need to be heard and understood then entice them with adult type activities that are often sexual in content such as x-rated movies or pictures. They offer them alcohol or drugs to hamper their ability to resist activities or recall events that occurred.

    Stockholm Syndrome :

    It is not unusual for the child to develop feelings for the predator and desire their approval and continued acceptance. They will compromise their innate ability to decipher good and bad behavior, ultimately justifying the criminal's bad behavior out of sympathy and concern for the adults welfare. This is often compared to Stockholm Syndrome - when victims become attached emotionally to their captors.

    The Single Parent:

    Many times pedophiles will develop a close relationship with a single parent in order to get close to their children. Once inside the home, they have many opportunities to manipulate the children -- using guilt, fear, and love to confuse the child. If the child's parent works, it offers the pedophile the private time needed to abuse the child.

    Fighting Back: Pedophiles work hard at stalking their targets and will patiently work to develop relationships with them. It is not uncommon for them to be developing a long list of potential victims at any one time. Many of them believe that what they are doing is not wrong and that having sex with a child is actually "healthy" for the child.

    One factor that works against the pedophile is that eventually the children will grow up and recall the events that occurred. Often pedophiles are not brought to justice until such time occurs and victims are angered by being victimized and want to protect other children from the same consequences.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  14. #29
    Elite Member CherryDarling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Little Detroit
    Posts
    14,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bychance View Post
    This is not about child molestation in general, and that is where (and what) people fail to understand.
    Ok then...what is it about? Lemme guess...a 'witch hunt' against an innocent man?
    Mischief. Mayhem. Tattoos. Soap.

  15. #30
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5,299

    Default

    You tell me that I "...cannot construct a proper sentence warrants even less". So what does calling me (or anyone else for that matter) immature names say about you? You don't have to resort to that in order to make a point. And yes, I've read Gavin and Star Arvizo's testimonies. They were all full of contradictions. Heres an example:

    QUESTIONS BY T. MESEREAU

    Time line

    Q. Do you remember telling Mr. Sneddon and the
    19 sheriffs on one occasion that you were molested
    20 before the video was done?
    21 A. No.
    22 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
    23 you a transcript of that interview?
    24 A. Yes. Please.
    25 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?
    26 THE COURT: Yes.
    27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to
    28 look at that transcript?
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that
    3 Mr. Sneddon was interviewing you about when these
    4 acts of molestation allegedly occurred?
    5 A. Yes. But the thing was, I don’t — even to
    6 this day, I don’t remember exactly when everything
    7 happened exactly, so I mean –
    8 Q. Well, do you remember being asked, “The acts
    9 of molestation, had they already begun by the time
    10 you did this video, do you know?” And you said, “I
    11 think so.”
    12 And then Mr. Sneddon said to you, “So, in
    13 your mind, one of the things that you’re thinking
    14 is, they’re doing this video that they want you guys
    15 to do so that if you ever told them the truth about
    16 being molested, nobody would believe you,” and you
    17 say, “Yeah,” right?
    18 A. Well, I –
    19 Q. Do you remember saying that to Mr. Sneddon?
    20 A. That’s more of my opinion - you know what I
    21 mean? - right there. That last statement you just
    22 said on that transcript, it’s more of my opinion
    23 than a state of fact.
    24 Q. Well, Mr. Sneddon asked you last week when
    25 this inappropriate touching supposedly occurred, and
    26 you said it was after the rebuttal video was made,
    27 correct?
    28 A. Yes.
    1 Q. But in an interview with Mr. Sneddon before
    2 this trial ever began, you told him differently,
    3 correct?
    4 A. That’s what it says right there. But it
    5 happened after.
    6 Q. Did someone
    Q. Did someone ever say to you, “You have to
    7 say it happened after, because on the rebuttal video
    8 you deny he’s ever done anything wrong”?
    9 A. No. No one’s ever told me that.
    10 Q. Then why does your story change?
    11 A. I don’t know. It happened after. I mean –
    12 Q. Well, at some point did you go to Mr.
    13 Sneddon and say, “I’m changing my story about when
    14 this inappropriate touching happened”?
    15 A. No.
    16 Q. At some point did you go to the sheriffs and
    17 say, “I’m changing my story about when this
    18 inappropriate touching happened”?
    19 A. No.
    20 Q. You just suddenly got on the stand and
    21 changed it?
    22 MR. SNEDDON: Object as argumentative, Your
    23 Honor.
    24 THE COURT: Sustained.
    25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you ever had any
    26 discussion at any time with Mr. Sneddon where you
    27 used words to the effect, “I’m changing my story
    28 about the time this molestation happened”?
    1 A. No.
    2 Q. Okay. When Mr. Sneddon asked you questions
    3 last week about when this molestation supposedly
    4 occurred, was that the first time you said to Mr.
    5 Sneddon it happened after the rebuttal video?
    6 A. I don’t think so.
    7 Q. You don’t think so?
    8 A. I don’t think that was the first time I ever
    9 told him that it happened after the rebuttal video.
    10 Q. So are you saying that at different times
    11 you gave Mr. Sneddon different accounts of when the
    12 molestation supposedly happened?
    13 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to
    14 object to that question. Assumes facts not in
    15 evidence, and it’s argumentative and speculative.
    16 THE COURT: Overruled.
    17 Do you want the question read back?
    18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
    19 (Record read.)
    20 THE WITNESS: Sometimes I would talk to
    21 Mr. Sneddon without having like an interview — or,
    22 like, have a recorder or something. And I would
    23 talk — like, Mr. Sneddon was being really nice to
    24 me. Like he was helping me, and he was making me
    25 feel better about what happened and stuff. So he’s
    26 been really nice to me.

    My comment: Of course Sneddon would be nice to you. He wanted to use you.

    27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you remember telling
    28 the Santa Barbara Grand Jury that after the Miami
    1 trip, your brother stayed in Michael’s room with you
    2 every night until the last few days?
    3 A. Yeah, he stood in my room — he stood in the
    4 room with me and Michael pretty much every day.
    5 Some days he wouldn’t stay there.
    6 Q. Do you remember telling the grand jury that
    7 until the last few days, your brother Star stayed
    8 with you in Michael’s room all the time?
    9 A. He stood with us — well, he — the last –
    10 the last week or two, or a few days, or something
    11 like that, he didn’t. Well, because my brother
    12 wasn’t there when it happened, so I’m pretty sure it
    13 wasn’t — he stopped staying there the last few
    14 weeks.
    15 Q. Do you remember telling the Santa Barbara
    16 Grand Jury:
    17 “Q. Was your brother staying in the room
    18 with you during that time?
    19 “A. Well, the last few times he didn’t, but
    20 he was, like, when Michael was there — when
    21 Michael was there –
    22 “Q. Uh-huh.
    23 “A. — he stood with me for all the time
    24 when Michael was there. But, like, toward the
    25 end, toward the last few days, he wasn’t staying
    26 with me no more.”
    27 Do you remember that?
    28 A. Uh-huh.

    Contradicts Star

    Q. And you’ve also told this jury that the two
    2 times you claim Michael Jackson inappropriately
    3 touched you Star wasn’t there, correct?
    4 A. Yes.

    Gavin contradicts “I was scared”


    Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, your brother Star had
    8 just said that going to Neverland Ranch was
    9 something you always looked forward to, right?
    10 A. Yes.
    11 Q. And at one point you realized you probably
    12 weren’t going to be returning to Neverland Ranch,
    13 right?
    14 A. After it was all over, I didn’t want to go
    15 back.
    16 Q. At some point you realized you weren’t going
    17 to be in Michael Jackson’s family, you weren’t going
    18 to Neverland Ranch, and it wasn’t until then that
    19 you ever came up with these allegations of
    20 molestation, right?
    21 A. I didn’t want to go back after I came back.
    22 Q. Please answer my question.
    23 It wasn’t until you realized that you and
    24 your mother and your brother and your sister were
    25 not going to be part of Michael Jackson’s family
    26 that you ever told anybody about any molestation,
    27 right?
    28 A. It wasn’t as if we got together and realized it. It wasn’t — so your question isn’t really
    2 working.
    3 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, could I request
    4 that the witness be instructed to answer the
    5 question?
    6 THE WITNESS: I don’t really understand the
    7 question.
    8 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. Rephrase
    9 your question.
    10 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. It wasn’t until you
    11 realized you were not going to be part of Michael
    12 Jackson’s family, you were not going to meet Michael
    13 Jackson in Brazil, you were not going to be going to
    14 Neverland, that you ever came up with these
    15 allegations of molestation, right?
    16 A. I didn’t come and talk to the — to the –
    17 my mom always wanted to leave. She was the one that
    18 was able to realize and get us out of there. I
    19 liked being there.

    Star caught making up stories. He says he saw no touching in grand jury. He was also caught quoting something he read in the newspaper.

    Q. Now, Prosecutor Sneddon asked you what you
    23 meant when you told the grand jury you hadn’t seen
    24 Michael Jackson touch Gavin’s genitals or penis.
    25 Do you remember that?
    26 A. Yes.
    27 Q. And your response to Mr. Sneddon was, “Well,
    28 I was just talking about the dinner table,” right?
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. How come you never mentioned “dinner table”
    3 to the grand jury when you made that statement?
    4 A. I don’t know if they asked me.
    5 Q. Well, let me just go through what you said.
    6 A. Okay.
    7 Q. Okay?
    8 “Q. What kind of things?
    9 “Fix his shirt.
    10 “Q. What else?
    11 “A. He looked like from — if you’re
    12 standing in front of him, it looked like he’s
    13 trying to fix his shirt. But it’s hard to
    14 explain. But he would like fix it, like he would
    15 touch — well, it was weird.
    16 “Q. He would be touching him a lot?
    17 “A. Yeah.
    18 “Q. Not his genitals, not his penis?
    19 “A. I never saw that. But I saw it in the
    20 paper.”
    21 A. I don’t know what I meant by “paper,” but I
    22 was trying to say that I didn’t see it that time.
    23 Q. But you never mentioned any kitchen table,
    24 right?
    25 A. But it wasn’t the kitchen table.
    26 Q. But you never mentioned any table at all,
    27 correct?
    28 A. I know.
    Q. When did you come up with that explanation?
    2 MR. SNEDDON: Object; argumentative.
    3 THE COURT: Sustained.
    4 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you discuss with
    5 Prosecutor Sneddon that you were going to be asked
    6 that question?
    7 A. No.
    8 Q. Have you ever discussed the statement you
    9 made to the grand jury about not seeing genitals or
    10 penis; ever discuss that statement with Mr. Sneddon?
    11 A. No.
    12 Q. Ever discuss it with any prosecutor?
    13 A. No.
    14 Q. Ever discuss it with anyone in the sheriff’s
    15 department?
    16 A. No.
    17 Q. You don’t mention that kitchen table in this
    18 context anywhere in the police reports, do you?
    19 A. I don’t know.
    QUESTIONS BY SNEDDON

    Another lie. Rijo was around during that timeline and Gavin contradicts himself when he says other times, Grace was there teaching the kids.


    Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Gavin, the first time he
    21 touched you, where were you? What room?
    22 A. We were in his room.
    23 Q. Where were you in his room?
    24 A. On the bed.
    25 Q. Was there anybody else present besides you
    26 and Mr. Jackson?
    27 A. No, I think it was only us.
    More lies from Gavin. His grandmother’s story is transfered onto MJ and the day they were caught in the wine cellar when MJ wasn’t on the ranch, it seems they wen’t to MJ’s room. He says “we were drinking a lot”.
    Q. Was there a period of time where your
    13 brother Star stopped sleeping with you and Mr.
    14 Jackson?
    15 A. Yes.
    16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.
    17 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was “Yes.”
    18 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: And was it before or after
    19 the time that Mr. Jackson touched you for the first
    20 time?
    21 A. When my brother stopped?
    22 Q. Yeah.
    23 A. It was before, because he stopped sleeping
    24 in our room — in the room.
    25 Q. All right. Tell the jury how it came about
    26 that you and Mr. Jackson were in bed together and
    27 what you were doing.
    28 A. Well, we were — well, we just had come back from drinking a lot in the arcade, and it was –
    2 Q. Doing what?
    3 A. Drinking in the arcade.
    4 Q. Can you pull that down just a little bit?
    5 There. Okay. Go ahead.
    6 A. We just came back from drinking in the
    7 arcade, and then we went up to his room. And then
    8 we were sitting there for a while, and Michael
    9 started talking to me about masturbation.
    10 Q. So you were in the room for a while and the
    11 defendant started talking to you about masturbation?
    12 A. Yes.
    13 Q. What did he say to you?
    14 A. He — he told me — he said that if men
    15 don’t masturbate, that they can get to a level where
    16 they can — might rape a girl or they might be,
    17 like, kind of unstable. So he was telling me that
    18 guys have to masturbate.
    19 And he told me a story that –
    20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; non responsive.
    21 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. We’ll stop
    22 right there.
    23 A. Okay.
    24 Q. What else did he say to you?
    25 A. He told me a story of he saw a boy one
    26 time - he was looking over a balcony or something -
    27 and he saw a boy who didn’t masturbate and he had sex with a dog.
    “That particular section”. He is not telling a story from the heart. He is reciting a script.
    Q. Did he tell you anything else during this
    2 conversation?
    3 A. That particular section? Or –
    4 Q. Yeah. I mean, did he tell you anything
    5 else?
    6 A. He told me that boys had to masturbate, or
    7 males have to masturbate.
    8 Q. Okay.
    Another lie. Gavin was not under covers with MJ in March. Rijo shared a bed with MJ which negates Gavin. Unless Gavin says he shared a bed with MJ and Rijo. But Rijo left Gavin because he was being “nasty”. Gavin transfers his own behavior to MJ and he also copies Jordy’s allegations
    A. He said that if I masturbated; and I told
    17 him that I didn’t. And then he said if I didn’t
    18 know how, that he would do it for me.
    19 Q. And what did you say?
    20 A. And I said I didn’t really want to.
    21 Q. All right. And then what happened?
    22 A. And then he said it was okay, that it was
    23 natural, and that it’s natural for boys to do it.
    24 Q. All right. What happened after that?
    25 A. And then so he — we were under the covers,
    26 and I had his pajamas on, because he had this big
    27 thing of pajamas and he gave me his pajamas.
    1 A. And so I was under his covers, and then
    2 that’s when he put his hand in my pants and then he
    3 started masturbating me.
    4 Q. Could you see Mr. Jackson while he was doing
    5 that to you?
    6 A. Not really. I wasn’t really looking at him.
    7 Q. Could you tell whether or not he was moving?
    8 A. Well, he was — he was himself?
    9 Q. Yes.
    10 A. I wasn’t really looking at him. All I
    11 could — I could kind of feel him moving, but, I
    12 mean, I never really saw him moving.
    13 Q. Do you know approximately how long Mr.
    14 Jackson masturbated you?
    15 A. Maybe five minutes, I guess.
    16 Q. Did — do you know what an “ejaculation” is?
    17 A. Yes.
    18 Q. And did you have an ejaculation?
    19 A. Yes.
    20 Q. Did Mr. Jackson say anything to you
    21 afterwards?
    22 A. I kind of felt weird. I was embarrassed
    23 about it. And then he said it was okay; that it was
    24 natural.
    25 Q. Did anything else happen that evening
    26 between you and Mr. Jackson?
    27 A. No. We just — after that, we just — he
    28 tried to say that it was okay and that — kind of
    1 like to comfort me, because I felt weird. I felt
    2 weird about it. And then after a while, we just
    3 went to sleep.

    Gavin repeats the same lie twice. Arcade drinking, on top of bed, pajamas. Someone molests you once and you go back again? Especially at that time when the world was abuzz? He also lies about him sleeping with MJ alone twice in March. Where was Rijo sleeping? Both days Gavin claims MJ said he wanted to “teach him”.

    Q. All right. And how was Mr. Jackson dressed;
    28 do you remember?
    1 A. He was in his pajamas, too.
    2 Q. Now, with — tell us what happened.
    3 A. The same thing happened again. And he said
    4 that he wanted to teach me. And then we were laying
    5 there, and then he started doing it to me. And then
    6 he kind of grabbed my hand in a way to try to do it
    7 to him. And I kind of — I pulled my hand away,
    8 because I didn’t want to do it.
    9 Q. Did Mr. Jackson say anything before he
    10 reached over and grabbed your private parts?
    11 A. He would always say that it was natural and,
    12 “Don’t be scared,” and it was okay.

    One of the 12 jurors was a victim of abuse, and witnessed the testimonies first hand. I would think that a person who has undergone sexual abuse can spot a fake. If aforementioned person vindicated Jackson, I wouldn't take that for a grain of salt. (But I'm sure one of you will make up an excuse for that too. People always do).

    Read carefully. Most people think that the alleged order of events is as follows: (1) Michael molested Gavin Arvizo, a 13-year-old cancer survivor, (2) the Bashir documentary aired, (3) local authorities began an investigation into his relationship with the boy, and then, finally, (4) he imprisoned the family until he could coerce them into denying, on camera, that anything ever happened.

    They would be wrong.

    According to the prosecution’s own version, here’s the correct order: (1) the Bashir documentary aired, (2) local authorities began an investigation, (3) Michael imprisoned the family, and then — after all this — (4) he began molesting the boy.

    That’s right. The first alleged instance of molestation took place after Michael Jackson was being investigated for molestation.

    I know that sexual predators can’t help when they prey upon their victims.
    But does anybody really believe that asexual Michael Jackson — with his handlers and staff of dozens — would be investigated for sexual molestation by authorities and appear in a documentary suggesting improper behavior … and then follow that up by actually molesting the child for the first time?

    On top of the questions this raises, why didn’t Gavin and his family immediately call the police after Gavin received the alleged reach-arounds?

    While the molestation claims have some evidential support, the false imprisonment charges are more ludicrous and specious than Tom Cruise’s claims to love Katie Holmes. After the prosecution rested, I’m surprised that the judge didn’t dismiss the imprisonment claims or, at least, fart in their general direction.

    Hell, I would love to be “falsely imprisoned” if it means I get a complementary outlet shopping spree for new clothes worth over a thousand dollars, a free Will Ferrell movie, a $175 steak dinner for me and my co-captives at Black Angus, a manicure, a wax, and my capturer picking up the tab for the removal of my son’s braces. OK, maybe I won’t love the wax job.

    I wonder if Gavin’s mother, Janet Jackson (Janet Arvizo actually, but she later married a man named Jay Jackson, therefore; Janet Jackson), was treated just as well during the two other times she alleged false imprisonment — once against her ex-husband and once against a pair of security guards at a JC Penney, who stopped her after finding her son in the store parking lot with stolen merchandise.

    Is it possible that one person has the bad luck of being falsely imprisoned not once, not twice, but three times? Would any higher power allow this to actually happen to a family with a cancer-stricken boy … other than the God of Sadism or, perhaps, Dick Cheney? Most incredibly, during the period of alleged imprisonment, the Arvizo family repeatedly returned to Neverland, after having plenty of opportunities to call for help (but never doing so).
    If it sounds like I’m saying that the Arvizo family is a conniving troupe of con-artist hell-bound miscreants, then your hearing needs to be checked, because I’m not talking out loud.

    I can conclude that this family is fully capable of exploiting Gavin’s illness to dig gold from countless celebrities like Chris Tucker (who got suckered into paying for plane tickets to Florida) and George Lopez, both of whom testified as well as many others involved.

    Call me high on Jesus Juice, but I believe MJ’s eventual conviction is, sadly, a foregone conclusion. Most Americans believed the Michael Jackson was guilty before the trial even began. This is evidenced by the fact that the media, as well as we the people, decided not to treat his trial as an actual legal proceeding to determine his guilt, but rather, a celebrity freak-show carnival. Where were the court analysts discussing the legal standard for false imprisonment? Why didn’t news magazines report on how the pattern of these alleged facts relate to other child abuse cases? What seasoned court observers actually discussed whether the prosecution met its burden of proof?

    I don’t know what goes through the mind of a sexual predator, nor do I know the pain of being one of his victims. I don’t know all the evidence against Michael Jackson; reading the various court testimony were as close as I got to the trial. But based on what I do know — the conflicting testimony, the questionable credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the lack of any DNA evidence, and the overwhelming evidence of the Arvizos’ ulterior motives — I submit that there is very reasonable doubt as to MJ’s guilt.

    If the allegation which opened the floodgates [1993] was fraudulent, it stands to reason that all subsequent allegations were fraudulent too - a notion upheld by the fact that every accuser besides Arvizo accepted a paycheck and never went to the police… if you had been molested and somebody tried to buy you off, would you tell them to shove it and report them to the police? I sure as hell would.

    It’s worth remembering, too, that the Arvizo’s did approach several civil suit lawyers about suing Jackson and only went to the police after they all rejected them. It is worth remembering also that the Arvizo’s approached a civil suit attorney about suing Jackson for child molestation before they’d even met him. The only reason they bucked the trend was because nobody would take them on, not because they didn’t try.

    The court transcripts from every single day of the Jackson trial were actually put online, free of charge, for anybody in the world to download and read. As far as I am concerned, anybody who read about the trial in the papers or saw it on TV - but did not bother to download those transcripts and read them - I don’t feel they even deserve an opinion on the trial because they are uneducated on the subject. If somebody asked me what I think of Orwell’s philosophies on eighteenth century politics… I wouldn’t give an opinion because I know nothing about it. But everybody thinks they deserve an opinion about Michael Jackson’s trial, despite the fact that they have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. Willingness to condemn without first studying all the facts.
    Last edited by bychance; November 6th, 2007 at 12:34 AM.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lisa Marie Presley: 'I married Michael Jackson to hide'
    By MaryJane in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2011, 02:25 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: February 9th, 2007, 08:18 AM
  3. Michael Jackson to Marry the Nanny
    By greysfang in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 29th, 2006, 08:38 PM
  4. Michael Jackson may marry his kids' nanny
    By moomies in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 17th, 2006, 06:39 PM
  5. Britney Spears' New Nanny, Shar Jackson!
    By UndercoverGator in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 12th, 2005, 12:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •