--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
So you discovered other points of view on the case. So have I, and like the LA DA, I have made up my mind. The many articles I have read, including the Esquire article, which attack specifics of the complicated cases don't change once simple fact: Michael Jackson as an adult slept in the bed with many children whom he would spend hours on the phone with in cultivating a relationship until he could get the kid and the parents to his hotel or Neverland where he would separate the parents and female children of the child using shopping trips so that he could be alone with the child. This would end up with him spending night after night in the same bed with a child. This is all a FACT, and most of it Michael admitted to. It happened again and again. So if that means nothing to you, fine. It means only one thing to me and the LA DA, a child was being preyed on. There is no "other side" that excuses this behavior, including the details of some of the unsavory parents who pimped out their kids. Many of them, (and there were many of them) were total pieces of shit. I am angry that he got off but am glad it is finally over. Judy > That would be the book by the brother of the man whose > son was the accuser, right? The man who later committed > suicide, right? He never got over the guilt of he and his wife pimping out their son to Michael according to him before his death. He was racked with guilt about not protecting his son. He got caught up. Michael was a pro, like most predators, he had perfected a routine. And he had the unlimited WOW factor of his immense wealth. Were you trying to attack the credibility of the source,is that what all those "rights" about? Maybe you should read the book before you judge it. The most compelling things are the court papers which are verified from other sources. But watching your phony outrage on his behalf has been a hoot so thanks for that. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > Michael Jackson was a child molester > > > > > > Quite sure of that, are you? Have some insider info? > > > > Yup quite sure of it. As is the LA DA's office who put > > their credibility on the line in pursuit of justice. > > But if you want to go beyond an internet resource put > > up by fans > > And your evidence that the Wikipedia articles were > "put up by fans" is...? > > If you were to look at the Discussion pages, you might > come away with a different impression. As with most > controversial topics on Wikipedia, participants > included both pro- and anti-Jackson factions, plus > Wikipedia administrators mediating between them to make > sure the information ended up being objective. > > In any case, both articles are well documented, so you > can check to see where bias (in either direction) might > be reflected. > > > you could read one of the many books starting with Ray > > Chandler's excellent "All That Glitters" > > That would be the book by the brother of the man whose > son was the accuser, right? The man who later committed > suicide, right? > > Ever read this article from GQ? > > http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html > > <snip> > > > > who should have died in prison. > > > > > > Nice. > > > > To wish a pedophile had paid for his crime? Yeah that IS nice. > > See, unlike you, I don't know whether Jackson abused > children or not. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure > you don't either. In the absence of certain knowledge, > or at least conviction, I don't wish dying in jail on > anybody, and I think there's something pretty badly > wrong with anyone who does. > > > > <snip disgusting commentary> > > > > Michael Jackson's crimes against children were disgusting. > > Your mock offense at me mentioning it is also. > > If there's any fauxtrage in this discussion, it's yours, > not mine. > > > > > Nice to see you pile on instead of taking Richard to task > > > > for his twisted accusation. > > > > > > I suspect he was commenting on your hypocrisy, as am I. > > > > So if I make a joke about his death I that means I am > > prejudiced huh Judy? And agreeing with the LA DA's > > office about his criminal activities makes me a hypocrite? > > Want to try shoveling some more words in my mouth, Curtis? > > > You know what does strike me as a hypocritical, you > > giving Crazy Richard so much credit now after all your > > posts about how out to lunch his comments are. > > Yes, I guess there's no stopping you. Let's see, why, > here's some more: > > > Funny how he just became so cogent when it is about me. > > So tell me more how me making this joke makes me deserve > > being called prejudiced. You know in your "value" system. > > So, *so* much easier than actually addressing the issue. > > <snip more of the same> >
