All things Michael Jackson 3

[retiredcop]

During the second trial someone posted a link to an article or some kind of an essay. It had to do with the dark side of JM Barrie's Peter Pan and really got into the psychology behind Barrie's love for his "lost boys". I wish I could remember more. Does anyone from the old CTV boards remember this thread? It was a long, popular topic. I remember a poster named Packy being there alot. I did a google search and came up with alot of stuff but not this particular piece.

Thanks

An interesting read.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/29/1040511254669.html

[Cindylee]

Cindy,
I will reply to you about some of the questions you asked. I agree in part that Jackson should not have had any more children in his home or in the bedroom, while he was alone. He opened himself up to so much more than he should have.

It was never a secret that there was an allegation against Jackson for molesting the first boy. It was never a secret that money was paid to that first boy. It was paid by the insurance company right before the world tour was to start. We just did not know how much was involved.

Does it make any more sense to you that other mothers allowed their children to stay nights and weeks with Jackson knowing that there could be a slight chance that the molestion might have happened with the first child? What would be the parents motive be to allow their child to be in danger of the same thing happening to their child? Would you have left your child stay in that house, in Jackson's bedroom? And if you did, would you be able to leave that child/children and go shopping?
Would you settle for any amount of money if your child was molested? Would 20 million ease your guilt? It does not make sense to me. Does it make sense to you that after all is said and done, you marry a man with the last name of Jackson (now your name would be Janet Jackson) and name your new baby Michael Jackson? Would you honor your son's molester in such a way? Does that make sense to you?

I know personally, I would not want the daily reminder of what happened to my child.

To all the others that state that I am making excuses for Jackson, I am not. It does not make sense to me. And unless you have a child that has been molested, don't preach to me about what you feel about the child's molester.

Thank you for the reply.
I think the parents were crazy too. That they would have put their children in that situation is mind boggling to me. I am not saying MJ couldn't have been set up.... I am just saying he put himself in that position.

[marco]

Was Michael Jackson Framed?

snipped

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/gq-article-was-michael-jackson-framed/

Was Latoya lying in 1993?

"I just think Michael needs help, This has been going on since 1981, and it's not just one child."

I don't think Latoya was lying at all. I think she knew. Since 1981.

[retiredcop]

There was no second trial. Jackson only had one trial that I can remember.

I don't remember that piece but I bet you anyone can turn Mother Goose into something nasty.

The trouble is the first little boy didn't go to trial. I believed that would have stopped Michael Jackson in his tracks. I believe there was enough evidence to convict him. As far as the insurance company settling, I feel they knew that was the way out of this with far less money paid out.

I guess I would accept that kind of money for my child to have everything in life money could buy. It would be for psychological counseling as well. It would be better than to have my child sitting on the witness stand relating what had happened and having to testify to the pictures of Michael Jackson's genitals. That would be up to the parent.

I think it was disgusting the first boy didn't testify at the trial. He should have done that. He was an adult at the time and that is the least he could have done to stop the molestation of boys once and for all.

As far as parents allowing their children to be with Michael Jackson alone in his bedroom after the first little boys accusations, it is simple.
They didn't believe the first little boy anymore than posters here.

in my opinion

[marco]

snipped

As far as parents allowing their children to be with Michael Jackson alone in his bedroom after the first little boys accusations, it is simple.
They didn't believe the first little boy anymore than posters here.

in my opinion

The star struck parents thought more about knowing an infamous pop singer than they did about their own children's well being. Sick.

imo... of course.

[retiredcop]

Was Latoya lying in 1993?

"I just think Michael needs help, This has been going on since 1981, and it's not just one child."

I don't think Latoya was lying at all. I think she knew. Since 1981.

Not just Latoya knew, but Katherine knew since 1981. I think the whole family knew.

in my opinion

[retiredcop]

It doesn't matter whether JC wanted to testify or not -- two grand juries did NOT indict because there was NO evidence and criminal charges were dismissed. JMO

What are you talking about???

[retiredcop]

Why would the first accuser testify? He was living "high on the horse" off of MJ's money. The other accuser DID testify and the trial was about him -- there was NO evidence and many, many, inconsistent statements given by GA and his family. GA also admitted as well as his mother that they knew about the settlement with JC prior to requesting to meet MJ. They knew exactly what they were doing. Even Feldman, a civil attorney, overheard by Larry King, said this family was out for money and even refused to take the case as per LK's testimony 5/19/05. JMO

The trial itself may have knocked some sense in Michael Jackson. There has been no evidence he was still seeing young boys after the trial and while moving around. That would be mission accomplished if true.

He had, however, invited the boy who won the contest to travel with him on his new tour and sing a song with him at every concert. Any guesses as to where that boy would have been staying while traveling on the concert trail??


in my opinion

[daniel green]

<snipped for content>



Did you not read the TOS or simply choose to ignore them?

<<You may link to any site but you must check copyright first.
If it says AP (Associated Press) or ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, you may only copy the link & NOTHING ELSE.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=339651&page=3 >>

Oh, WH, she does that all the time. Copies looooooooooong articles withtout attribution or a proper link. Quotes from all rights reserved articles all the time. Spams the board with the same old nonsense over and over again.

[daniel green]

Again you are deliberately lying. There was no longer a complaining witness. Police protection was not an option for the boy and his father. There were death threats. Two grand juries didn't indict because they were DISBANNEDED.

But you just keep lapping up that nonsense..............

That lie about the two grand juries is just so pathetic and lame.

[daniel green]

During the second trial someone posted a link to an article or some kind of an essay. It had to do with the dark side of JM Barrie's Peter Pan and really got into the psychology behind Barrie's love for his "lost boys". I wish I could remember more. Does anyone from the old CTV boards remember this thread? It was a long, popular topic. I remember a poster named Packy being there alot. I did a google search and came up with alot of stuff but not this particular piece.

Thanks

I have long thought about that connection, though I have never read the article about it.

VERY interesting.

[warhorse46]

Oh, WH, she does that all the time. Copies looooooooooong articles withtout attribution or a proper link. Quotes from all rights reserved articles all the time. Spams the board with the same old nonsense over and over again.



When we see violations like that on the boards it is our duty to report them to CW. Like a neighborhood watch assc. we are responsible for keeping our "neighborhood" clean.

[daniel green]

When we see violations like that on the boards it is our duty to report them to CW. Like a neighborhood watch assc. we are responsible for keeping our "neighborhood" clean.

Indeed.

I reported as well. It is such a waste of bandwidth to spam the forum, most especially with all rights reserved articles.

[daniel green]

snipped
The boys families were all extortionists. Go figure. JMO

Gosh, what bad luck.

[daniel green]

snipped

If the pedophile targets a child whose family is of questionable repute and has a history of grifting behavior, then the perpetrator has less to worry about if he's caught or questioned. All he has to do is discredit the family based on their own actions, which also serves to deflect attention away from his own actions.

.

It's absolute textbook.

The sexually abused children I have worked with over 20 yrs all have one thing in common, and that is parental neglect or addicted parents, etc.

[tiptop]

---------------

U were forced here? LOL No one could force me to go where i didnt want to be. The only nonsense i see here is the constant excuses and idolizing for MJ. imo

Yup. No one is forced to post here. Despite his or her desire to prove MJ a saint and totally innocent of what most here accuse him of.

I dont hate MJ enough to discount every good thing about him. Nor do I love him enough to excuse all his "unique" proclivities. IMO most of us here will never know what really happened. We base our judgments on our experiences. But for him to continue to invite boys into his bed speaks on two levels. Either he was totally innocent and was as he presented himself to the public - naive and innocent; or he was a textbook pedophile arrogant and confident in himself and his techniques. He was intent on being the greatest superstar that ever lived. And raking in as much money as possible. But for him to continue this issue with the boys, well -- that tells me that his desire to be with children truly did outweigh his desire for a money or any other higher plateau.

[Barbara fl.]

When we see violations like that on the boards it is our duty to report them to CW. Like a neighborhood watch assc. we are responsible for keeping our "neighborhood" clean.



Hi Warhorse46, haven't seen your posts in some time......miss posting with you..

I fully agree with what you say....been lurking in here and know what you mean...

Take care, hope to post with you again.......

[tiptop]

---------------------

I would say textbook pedophile. imo

I think lots of people agree with you.

[Cindylee]

Good evening all. Everyone must have been having a good Labor Day. :laugh:

[Lavinia]

In memoriam tattoos.

http://placeforfun.net/cool-pictures/we-love-michael-jackson.html

[warhorse46]

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/gq-article-was-michael-jackson-framed/

Is that better?


Yes except you quoted your post that violates the TOS & Coldwater has stated that in itself can be a bannable offence. I think it would be to your benefit to go to the FAQ board & read Coldwater's posts & read the TOS.

[warhorse46]

How can you keep a neighborhood watch when you are so eagar to hurt your neighbor, rather than reach out to that neighbor and express your concerns, to see if some guidance would be appropriate before calling the authorities on that neighbor.

I tried to have a separate thread, to avoid some of this nonsense, but to my dimsay.. I was forced back into an unfriendly neighborhood, where clearly the welcome wagon missed me


I think your thread was closed because there were multiple violations of the copyright laws & the forum TOS. You are assuming I reported your posts, I never said I reported any of them. You know what assume does, right?

[warhorse46]

Does it really say that in TOS that it's our duty to report violations to the moderators?




You have misquoted me. I never said it was in the TOS. But if you take the time to read Coldwater's posts then you would know where my statement came from.

[warhorse46]

It was hard to understand what you were saying really.

Do you have a link to where she says it's our duty to report people? I can't find one but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.

I looked here but there's nothing about it.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=349418




Read Coldwater's posts, she has stated it multiple time for years.

[GentleBreeze]

-----------------

Your "all good things MJ" was merged with this one because there weren't enough people posting on that thread. Not hard to understand if u think about it. imo

That is not true. There are threads on the holiday board that have only a few posts and are still up and open and Nic had quite a few posts in it before it was merged. Also it had a high rate of views too from lurkers.

imo

[retiredcop]

Here is a link to the movie "Doubt". I saw it and found it very interesting.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0918927/plotsummary

[Imperfect4]

Last time I checked, this was the In Session message board, run by In Session moderators, who make all the decisions about what topics stay, go, are moved around, etc. and so forth.

None of us should assume just because we want something here, we will have it.

To my knowledge, this is a discussion board ... not a fan or tribute site. In my experience, threads which are started for the express purpose of excluding a certain segment of posters (in this case, posters who disagree with the thread starter's high opinion of a deceased pop icon), rarely last long. They are either merged, or deleted.

[sallemae]

Again you are deliberately lying. There was no longer a complaining witness. Police protection was not an option for the boy and his father. There were death threats. Two grand juries didn't indict because they were DISBANNEDED.

But you just keep lapping up that nonsense..............


Why did they disban? No evidence?

[sallemae]

See post 585 for your answer. :glare:


No testimony, no evidence.....disbanned

[sallemae]

OMG. :blushing:

And Elvis didn't dress up like some pretend royal member, either.

OH YES HE DID, with his white spandex pants and white cape with rhinestones on it. Yes he did!

[sallemae]

the artist himself says he contracted with Michael to do the "Last Supper" for him.

http://nategiorgio.robinsshowcase.com/


I looked at the painting, it does say "Last Supper" (Heroes)

Why doesn't any of the complainers of MJ mention the word Heroes, that's part of the title.

imo