Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-14-2005, 09:18 AM   #26
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Originally Posted by chukzombi
I know no decent parent would allow their son to sleep with MJ but i can hope there is a husband or wife out there who their retarded ex spouse let mj get his clutches on their boy. I can hope that some day one of those decent parents will do the right thing and not call tom sneddon or a lawyer but instead get their trusty walther ppk or the remmy with slugsters and deal with MJ in the Sin City Yellow Bastard style he deserves. Only then will MJ has his day.
I think those parents would be better training their small arms on themselves. As f'd up as MJ is, these parents who allowed sleepovers with a grown man should also be on trial IMO.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | Æsöp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | Æölï
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 09:20 AM   #27
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
As f'd up as MJ is, these parents who allowed sleepovers with a grown man should also be on trial IMO.
No arguments there.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 09:47 AM   #28
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Inappropriate behavior? wouldnt that be along the lines of proof? Scott Peterson was convicted on LESS evidence than they had on MJ or OJ, now tell me there isnt a problem with this.

Oh by the way I heard on David Letterman that SH is getting his trial moved to California :P
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 09:53 AM   #29
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Hormadrune
I think those parents would be better training their small arms on themselves. As f'd up as MJ is, these parents who allowed sleepovers with a grown man should also be on trial IMO.
The "mother" let the boy sleep with Jackson cause there wasnt anything going on... or, she was hoping to build a strong enough case for a civil suit. Either way the mother is nuts.

Im not saying Jackson wouldnt, or has never.. but in this case, with this boy and his "mother", I strongly doubt anything ever happened.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 09:58 AM   #30
Brigiid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,879
Send a message via AIM to Brigiid
Originally Posted by Axgar
Scott Peterson was convicted on LESS evidence than they had on MJ or OJ, now tell me there isnt a problem with this.
The question isn't so much, "Is he guilty?" as it is, "Did the prosecution do a sufficient job in presenting/trying this case?". To the first question, the answer is probably yes, to one degree or another. To the second, the answer is no. There was a lot of room for people to look at the mother and go, "Something isn't adding up here." When you're deciding the next X number of years of a man's life, I think many people want to be at least reasonably sure that he's really guilty/innocent before they seal the deal.

I don't think there was that kind of conflict in the Peterson case.
Brigiid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 10:06 AM   #31
Shylodog
Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 1,377
Send a message via Yahoo to Shylodog
Originally Posted by Davek
Well, one thing about his freakish looks...it takes the attention away from his finger nails.

Seriously...take a look at some of the pics around where he has his hand in front of his face. The least he could do is wash and use a nailbrush after doing some fingering.
I noticed that too Davek, and I think that's just one of the places that they couldn't remove his pigment (or whatever the hell the did to his freakish skin).
__________________
Shylodog Wamphyri
66 Arch Convoker
(Retired)

Originally Posted by Hormadrune
Write it down- Chuk made me lolirl
Originally Posted by Drysdale
To bumbleroot: Know what? You're right. I DID misread your statement and I DO apologize.
Shylodog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 10:12 AM   #32
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Alls I see is a big problem with our judicial system, and just to get the race card thrown out of anything here......... Robert Blake was guilty as hell too, does california have any prosecuters that can win a case against a big name person whom is guilty? are they all this stupid or do they get paid off OR are the criminal lawyers there just that damn good?
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 10:16 AM   #33
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Axgar
Alls I see is a big problem with our judicial system, and just to get the race card thrown out of anything here......... Robert Blake was guilty as hell too, does california have any prosecuters that can win a case against a big name person whom is guilty? are they all this stupid or do they get paid off OR are the criminal lawyers there just that damn good?

Guilty in the court of public opinion really doesnt, nor should, mean much of anything. That is why we have trials in this country and why we have certain rules of engagement. The prosecution had it's chance, it presented all the evidence it had, and the jury - the "you and me" peers - reviewed it and considered it and did not find guilt.

Now, letting him go because of a hung jury.. thats another thing. But this wasnt a hung jury.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 10:27 AM   #34
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
yea it really dont matter that these people walked, I mean the fact that the prosecution blew a open and shut case in 3 instances and actually got a guy whom has a better chance IMO of being not guilty the death penalty tells me that I dont want to live in California and also tells me not to put myself into postitions that could eventually lead to more trouble than i want or need.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 10:45 AM   #35
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Axgar
yea it really dont matter that these people walked, I mean the fact that the prosecution blew a open and shut case in 3 instances and actually got a guy whom has a better chance IMO of being not guilty the death penalty tells me that I dont want to live in California and also tells me not to put myself into postitions that could eventually lead to more trouble than i want or need.
No way I wanna live in Ca. The "W" sticker on my truck would get me blowed up.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 01:52 PM   #36
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Ini
Those trips to the Sylvan learning center are really paying off Luri.
I knew you couldn't answer the question. Unless you were in the courtroom on a daily basis you know no more than what you were spoon fed by the media.

I will let you in on a little secret... here in America there is this idea of "innocent until proven guilty". The man was assumed to be innocent the moment charges were brought against him. The system couldn't prove his guilt, so it is still assumed he is innocent. He is a freak, but it hasn't been demonstrated that he is a child molester. If being a freak was against the law you would be jailed right along with MJ.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 03:27 PM   #37
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Sleeping with boys at his age when he has a mansion and there is no proof? Jesus H Christ common sense tells you something bad is happening.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 03:53 PM   #38
Ini
Indestructible
 
Ini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Davek is still my hero!
Posts: 4,007
Send a message via Yahoo to Ini
I am not disagreeing with you that the prosecution couldn't make their case. They made some bonehead moves that cost them the case. You sit here and honestly tell me you think nothing is hapenning in his bedroom with him and those kids. You are more naive than I thought Luri. No sane adult would even put themselves in that situation. Face it. MJ is a typical predator. He picks out these poor unfortunate kids and promises the parents and the kid everything.

You think its coincidence he had kids in there whose familys have shady pasts.

As far as being jailed for being a freak, who has a post count of 11k + I thought so
__________________
Pafuna Economics 101

That reminds me of someone eating a shit sandwich who is happy that it has 20% less shit.
Ini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 05:23 PM   #39
Warger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Tampa,FL
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Ini
I am not disagreeing with you that the prosecution couldn't make their case. They made some bonehead moves that cost them the case. You sit here and honestly tell me you think nothing is hapenning in his bedroom with him and those kids. You are more naive than I thought Luri. No sane adult would even put themselves in that situation. Face it. MJ is a typical predator. He picks out these poor unfortunate kids and promises the parents and the kid everything.

You think its coincidence he had kids in there whose familys have shady pasts.

As far as being jailed for being a freak, who has a post count of 11k + I thought so
I /agree

But face it.... If your a dumbass to allow your children to go to another person house to play and "Drink Milk and eat cookies in bed with a grown man".. then sadly what is there to say? i would blame the people who allow their children to go to another person house. Face it, people are after MJ to get money out of his pockets and letting there little kid get butt rap?? /shrugs maybe the guy do love kids and not doing stuff like that..but who knows... its all lock up within his doors... i dunno /shrugs just my opinion!! Dont hate bitches!
__________________
Warger
Lvl 100 ScourgeKnight Of Doom
-Went to Hell ( RETIRED )-
"F*** my opening line!

Come Away with me now! so i might F***ing F*** you!"
Warger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 06:34 PM   #40
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
I love that argument, its not MJ's fault he raped a little boy, its the parents fault for letting them be with michael! Thats exactly why that gay jury put in the verdict of not guilty. They thought michael was a pedo but becuase they so disliked the accuser's mother, she snapped her fingers at the jury and let her son stay with michael. They blamed it all on her and let MJ go free.

John Gibson has a similiar opinion

Well, that's a relief isn't it? It sounds like the sleepovers with boys are still on at Neverland ranch, upstairs in Michael Jackson's (search) bedroom. For a while there, it appeared a bunch of bluenose busybodies were going to interfere with what is obviously a loving act of sharing on the part of the pop superstar.

Oh sure, the jurors said they thought Michael probably did molest boys, but in the end they did the right thing and blamed the mother for trying to turn an act of love and sharing — which is sharing his bed — into something sinister and foul and dirty for which she thought she was going to get a boatload of money.

But it wasn't just her. Michael Jackson's former lawyer, Howard Weitzman was on O'reilly Monday night, telling Bill that he told Michael to stop sleepovers with boys back in 1993 when Michael generously offered one of the boys $20 million to "cover college costs."

And then Tuesday, Michael's current lawyer, Tom Mesereau (search) said no more sleepovers.

Like, right, that's going to happen. Sure.

Michael has already told you that these are loving acts of sharing. And the "King of Pop's" jury has said it's OK, it's good. Michael, you just keep on keeping on.


So whew, thank God. It looked like the opponents of loving and sharing — the blue meanies of the new millennium — were going to stop the loving and sharing. But the jury stood in their way.

Not that everything went perfect with that jury, mind you. Sure, they said the mother was awful for trying to turn the sleepovers with her son into money, but they also said they thought Michael probably did molest those boys.

What did they mean by that? If they thought he molested the boy, how could they declare the mother guilty?

So much upside down thinking here. Of course it's clear to all of us now that the jury didn't think Michael molested anyone. They thought he was loving and sharing, and thank God we can count on a California jury to support loving and sharing.

I know we all feel better now.

That's My Word.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 06:59 PM   #41
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Everyone is talking about the mother, but wasnt the boy's testimonies inconsistant? I thought I had read that the boy had a problem remembering when it happened, how many times it happened, what exactly happened, where it happened.. and then told a few people that it never happened at all.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 07:03 PM   #42
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
That editorial was populist bullshit and I hope to god no one missed its real message. Its basicly criticizing people for doing their duty as a citizen and stepping outside their media formed opinions and prejudices and weighing actual evidence.

This case was shoddy from day one and the prosecution should be ashamed for wasting tax payers money.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 07:24 PM   #43
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Ini
I am not disagreeing with you that the prosecution couldn't make their case.
The prosecution made their case. The problem was that there wasn't one to begin with!

You sit here and honestly tell me you think nothing is hapenning in his bedroom with him and those kids.
No. I will tell you exactly all that you can say. We don't know what happened in his bedroom. You are simply guessing. There are some pretty strange people in the world. For all we know he layed in the bed with those kids pretending he was in a cryogenic state waiting for ET to take him home. You don't know any more than that, and neither do I.

As far as being jailed for being a freak, who has a post count of 11k + I thought so
Thing is that I don't deny being a freak. What is wrong with you?
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." —Monty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 07:35 PM   #44
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
That editorial was populist bullshit
You obviously didnt see or read any of the the interviews with the jurors. Not only did they let whacko jacko go free becuase they hated the mother, 6 of them have been to neverland as guests prior to the trial and 8 or 10 of them are fans.

Populism is exactly what happened here. in Meseraus(sp) closing statement he said to jury, (im paraphrasing) "look at Michael Jackson's face, does that look like a person who would do such crimes!" yeah no populism there. just the hard evidence.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 07:51 PM   #45
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
I read the interviews and I watched the interviews and I read and watched peoples impressions of the interviews and I can only come to one conclusion. The evidence was so thin that even 12 people who "knew" Michael Jackson was a freak couldnt find enough evidence to convict him. A sad commentary on the prosecutions case and efforts.

The entire case hinged on the argument "every one knows he did it". Bringing in old victims of uncharged crimes to prove he did it this time was weak sauce indeed and just proved the weakness of the case.

I think Michael Jackson has touched more little boys wieners than Trojenz-Jr, but my opinion shouldnt be enough to put him in jail.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 07:56 PM   #46
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
You're forgetting the provison of 1108, prior bad acts states the other allegations do not have to be charges but only to show a pattern that michael was a sexual predator of little boys. It clearly worked becuase the jurors said those other witnesses of the prior bad acts provision convinced them michael was a pedo, but they IGNORED all that and let their buddy michael go free becuase they disliked the mother and blamed her for the boy's rape becuase she let him stay there.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 08:47 PM   #47
ShardmoonVer.1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Jacksonville
Posts: 7,457
The problem is, Michael Jackson wasnt on trial for being a pedophile. He was on trial for molesting this particular boy and the case was weak and hinged on very little evidence.
__________________
If you don't have something good to say about some one, say it loud.
ShardmoonVer.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 09:03 PM   #48
SupportTank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Ottawa. AKA, SUCK CENTRAL!
Posts: 3,344
now if they had simply charged him with reckless endangerment to a child this would never have been in question and he would been put away.


the child out the window on live video shoulda been enough to have him put behind bars.
__________________
Everyone has The Right to MY opinion!
Everyone also has the right to be Stupid every now and then. Some people Don't know how Not to abuse that!

70 Warrior - Affliction

If someone tells you it's OK to lie. How do you know they aren't lying?
SupportTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 09:04 PM   #49
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,564
This thing is shard, according to the jurors they said they thought mj was a pedo in prior acts. Under that provision they should view his conduct in this case as such. how on earth can a person who you think is a pedo sleep in the same bed with a little boy and not conclude he only had him in bed for sex?

Mj has a good racket, he hires fuckups to work for him and if they ever talk about what goes on at neverland it is easy to discredit them becuase they are a fuckup. even known liars are capable of telling the truth. for you to believe michael is 'innocent' of this you had to buy into the conspiracy that all these neverland workers and young boys are working together to take down the king of poop.

This isnt the first time MJ has pulled a black helicopter. remember when he left Sony?
http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/145..._michael.jhtml

Michael Jackson took on Sony Music chairman Tommy Mottola this past weekend, accusing the head of his record company of being a racist and part of a racist conspiracy against black artists.

Though it was anticipated that Jackson would

challenge standard practices of the music industry and champion artists' rights when he spoke at the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network in New York's Harlem neighborhood on Saturday, his personal attacks against the Sony executive came as a surprise, not least of all to Sharpton himself.

Most of Jackson's comments were constrained to the overall treatment of black artists, the struggle of whom he said he shared. The pop star compared his troubles with his record company to those of artists who struggled financially, saying that there was an "incredible injustice" taking place.

"The recording companies really, really do conspire against the artists," Jackson said. "They steal, they cheat, they do everything they can, especially [against] the black artists. ... People from James Brown to Sammy Davis Jr., some of the real pioneers that inspired me to be an entertainer, these artists are always on tour, because if they stop touring, they would go hungry. If you fight for me, you're fighting for all black people, dead and alive."

But Jackson may have taken a wrong turn when he turned the fight for him into a fight against Mottola. Claiming that Mottola had used the "N-word" to refer to an unidentified black Sony artist, Jackson singled out the company chairman for being "mean ... a racist ... and very, very, very devilish."

Those accusations expanded on previous comments Jackson had made at a fan club event in London on June 15, where he told the crowd, "Tommy Mottola is a devil." At that event, Jackson didn't address any aspects of racism, and he limited his remarks to his troubles with Sony, which he claimed had tried to destroy what was to have been his comeback album, Invincible, by failing to promote it.

According to sources close to the album, Sony spent $30 million to make Invincible and $25 million to promote it; only two singles and one video were released, however. And while Jackson did perform two high-profile anniversary concerts in September that were later televised (see "Michael Jackson Smooth At Tribute, But Wait Was Criminal"), he did not tour to support the album — another source close to the project said that Jackson refused to. Jackson also made few public appearances and granted even fewer interviews. Though Invincible sold an estimated 6 million copies worldwide and went double platinum in the U.S., it was not a blockbuster.

Still, the pop star has since escalated his troubles with his album sales and record company into an artist rights' issue, one that garnered him the support of not only Sharpton but also Johnnie Cochran (see "Michael Jackson, Al Sharpton, Johnnie Cochran Take On Labels"). While Sharpton still supports Jackson's view on the record industry overall, Sharpton told the New York Post that he was unaware that the pop star would vilify Mottola, an action he said was unfair and unfounded.

"He was the first record executive to step up and offer to help us with respect to corporate accountability, when it comes to black music issues," Sharpton told the Post. "I have known Tommy for 15 or 20 years, and never once have I known him to say or do anything that would be considered racist. ... I didn't know that Michael planned to personally attack Tommy, but nobody tells Michael Jackson what to do."

For its part, Sony was quick to defend Mottola as well, releasing a statement saying the company was bewildered by the pop star's remarks, which it called "ludicrous, spiteful and hurtful."

"We were deeply offended by the outrageous comments Mr. Jackson made during his publicity stunt this past Saturday," the statement reads. "The executive he attacked is widely supported and respected in every part of the music industry and has championed both Mr. Jackson's career and the careers of many other superstars. In launching an unfounded and unwarranted attack on this man's reputation, Mr. Jackson has committed a serious abuse of the power that comes with celebrity. The bizarre, false statements Mr. Jackson made on Saturday make it clear that his difficulties lie elsewhere than with the marketing and promotion of Invincible."

As the lines get drawn, Sharpton told the Post that he's already received a flurry of calls from top-level artists and producers upset with Jackson and coming to Mottola's defense, including producers Steve Stoute and Corey Rooney (Jennifer Lopez, Destiny's Child, Marc Anthony). It will soon be apparent whether Sharpton can separate Jackson's remarks about Mottola from the broader industry concerns their alliance is supposed to address, such as artist contracts and royalties, when National Action Network's Music Industry Initiative summit takes place Tuesday at NAN's New York headquarters
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2005, 09:32 PM   #50
Vireil
Disturbing the force
 
Vireil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 2,711
Everyone is talking about the mother, but wasnt the boy's testimonies inconsistant? I thought I had read that the boy had a problem remembering when it happened, how many times it happened, what exactly happened, where it happened.. and then told a few people that it never happened at all.
Exactly. The prosecution relied on fuzzy testimony from a victim that couldn't really say that he was a victim, (He was asleep when it happened) weakly cooberated by (possibly coached) eyewitness testimony from the brother that says he saw it happen, capped off with a videotaped statement to police that it did really happen. Combine that with the con artist, freak of a mother and the appearance of a personal vendetta from the DA and you've got reasonable doubt on this case.
__________________
Vireil
Coercer
<Recovering>
Vireil is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.