OT Sad News

[Steve at fivetrees]

"mark krawczuk" <krawczuk@adam.com.au> wrote in message
news:gICdnUgNKqhS0sjXnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@adnap.net.au...

doesnt matter which way u look at it , michael jacksons still a pedophile.

Rarely have I seen so few words demonstrate such enormous ignorance.

The spelling (or lack of it) didn't help.

Steve
--
http://www.fivetrees.com

 

[KR]

On Jul 9, 12:02 pm, "mark krawczuk" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:

doesnt matter which way u look at it , michael jacksons still a pedophile.

Oh, do you know something that we dont ?

Were you an eyewitness to
him allegedly performing such an disgusting act ?

Do you even know Jackson personally and can say what he is really
like, in order
to make any sort of judgement of him ?

If not, then you know as much as the rest of us -
no actual facts, or even opinion based on your own knowledge or
experience with the
man, just media hype and talk that is probably 99% lies and
distortions made up
in order to get the greatest sales of newspapers, magazines, TV
ratings etc.
Its not as though the media never lies.

Just be careful who you judge like this, lest someone one day does the
same to you.
If you are male in Australia (probably all western countries), then
you are a potential
target for similar false accusations yourself, and what you would do
in those circumstances.
I doubt many would believe your word over that of some "poor little
victim", and along the way you can have the pleasure of giving most or
all of your house to the legal industry to try and defend you.........


(None of my comments are intended to imply that you or anyone on this
group is a pedophile)

"CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4A46B8AB.F097FB78@yahoo.com...

"Mr.T" wrote:
"CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Jackson was found innocent by the forces of law, i.e. a jury.

A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
"not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.

Whatever. You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net
Try the download section.

 

[KR]

On Jul 10, 12:01 am, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid> wrote:

On 2009-07-09, mark krawczuk <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:

if michael jackson wasnt a rock spider , then why did he pay
out $20 million dollars to a kids parents IN ONE CASE ???? i
mean , IF you where innocent , would you pay out 20 million
dollars , ???

i dont think so ..

We've already discussed that.  You settle ("pay out") when

 1) your team of attorneys have decided it's cheaper than
    trying the case.

 2) The cost of losing the case at trial is so high that you
    can't tolerate even a small chance of losing.  

You also have to balance those points against the liklihood
that a settlement will encourange other people to sue.

Being "guilty" or "innocent" doesn't even enter into the
calculation most of the time.

Guilt or Innocence has little to do with the justic... oops - I mean
the legal system, often a "guilty" plea to something is simply a
result of a deal with the prosecution that results in an innocent
person getting "suspended sentence" rather than a certain jail time if
wrongly convicted by a jury. (especially a jury full of mark krawczuk
's).


When if comes to the bare facts of being free of jail to continue to
be able to work to support your family and not lose your house (and
then freedom) to pay the legal bills, when there is a dependant family
and children involved, almost all will step up and cop the deal to
protect their family. This then results in yet another group of
extended family, friends, associates (who know the real truth)
turning for life against the police, courts, and media, and often
losing any respect for the law that is supposed to keep our society
functioning smoothly. Another thing you should look at is the
queensland police (including the CMC who do the same) scam of
constantly issuing fake search warrants, often to intimidate people.
This probably happens all over the place for all we know.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24525576-421,00.html

Having a brother in law who is a barrister, who often tells of his
experiences of years in the legal system, and what really goes on
behind the scenes, if most of you knew the truth, you would stop all
this silly nonsense about the "police are always right and full of
integrity" and " everyone is a pedo / criminal " crap, which just
results from ignorance.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! I want you to MEMORIZE
                                  at               the collected poems of
                               visi.com            EDNA ST VINCENT MILLAY
                                                   ... BACKWARDS!!

 

[mark krawczuk]

well , admitting on tv that he sleeps with kids , he`s 100 % guilty , and
his managers finding him in bed with kidsmmmmmmm



"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4a55972c$0$26366$8404b019@news.wineasy.se...

mark krawczuk wrote:
if michael jackson wasnt a rock spider , then why did he pay out $20
million dollars to a kids parents IN ONE CASE ????
i mean , IF you where innocent , would you pay out 20 million dollars ,
???

i dont think so ..


Money is relative. Although later he had a lot of economic troubles, at
one point he had seriously large amounts of money. For him at the time,
it would be easy to make a payoff of $20mil to minimise publicity and get
the case out of the way so he can carry with his life and carrier. As a
percentage of his fortune, it was perhaps the equivalent of $200 for a
"normal" person - easily worth it.

So I don't think the payout shows any indication about his guilt or
innocence. The criminal courts did not find him guilty, therefore he is
legally innocent of the crimes charged. That's not the same thing as
saying he is truly innocent - there's a lot of grey areas in a situation
like this.

I think it's fair to say that no one here has any basis for judging his
guilt beyond the courts decision. A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - that's the way democratic
judicial systems work.




"KR" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd13a21f-e38d-465c-92a7-64b4e03e6196@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 28, 2:21 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
"CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4A46B8AB.F097FB78@yahoo.com...

Jackson was found innocent by the forces of law, i.e. a jury.
A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
"not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
Whatever. You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.
Nope, just like OJ he paid out millions of dollars to the victim's
family.

MrT.


Maybe this will be of interest.

http://jnelj.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/breaking-news-jordan-chandler-confesses-%E2%80%9Cmichael-jackson-didn%E2%80%99t-do-anything-to-me/

http://news.bakililar.az/english_23310.html


Also odd that I have yet to see this on Australian news as it would
blow
the Australian government / police propaganda policy that "every man
is a pedophile, or a pedophile in the making".

Without wanting to create any offence to you personally, you seem to
have
a similar attitude based on your comments.
If you were on a jury in such a case, I wouldn't believe
you could make a fair and just decision based on facts rather than
media bias or
personal feelings on the nature of the alleged crime.

This applies to a significant proportion of the population too IMHO.

This bias is probably why the thing was settled out of court.

I hope you press as hard for justice to be done to this bastard for
what he had done
to Jackson. Charges of Blackmail, extortion, perjury and instant
freezing of all assets pending transfer to Jackson's estate if found
guilty would be a good start. If you dont, then one day you could be
the next victim of this kind of human filth.

 

[David Brown]

KR wrote:

On Jul 9, 12:02 pm, "mark krawczuk" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:
doesnt matter which way u look at it , michael jacksons still a pedophile.


Oh, do you know something that we dont ?

Were you an eyewitness to
him allegedly performing such an disgusting act ?

Just to be a little bit pedantic, being a "paedophile" does not involve
any acts, and is not in itself a crime - it's considered a psychological
disorder. A "paedophile" is simply a person who is sexually stimulated
in some way by children. It's only when acting on these impulses to the
detriment of a child that it becomes a crime - most paedophiles are not
criminals and are not dangerous to anyone, because they do not act out
any desires they may have.

So MJ could well be a paedophile, but not guilty of any crime because he
may not have committed any abusive act (note that "sleeping" with a
child, in the direct literal sense, is not a crime AFAIK).