DwayneEMTP Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 OR it's using a little higher reasoning than the simple logic of one always being innocent if found innocent in court. Like we said he has a lot of factors that make hims suspect and a history of this happening twice before. It's fine if you believe he's innocent, but it's not ridiculous at all for many to think he's not. What reasoning exactly Anthony? And what are the "many factors?" That he's different and spends time with kids? Serious question, not trying to bust your chops. What information do you have that didn't come from the popular media? Are you accessing evidence that wasn't put out to the public? Perhaps you're friends with one of the investigators that was forced to withhold some valuable information at trial? What superior logic are you using? And if the superior logic is that the addition of one 'reported' fact plus another 'reported' fact equals guilt, how can you then claim to be using superior logic when historically those reported facts have proven to be bullshit? For example. It's been reported that Jackson had children in his bed. Having had Jackson's head of security at Neverland Ranch as a personal friend for many years I can tell you this is certainly true. Yet what was not reported in the media was that Jackson's bed in the master bedroom was custom made and was approx 30' x 30'. It was not uncommon for he and the kids to simply fall on it with their own blankets or sleeping bags at the end of the day. If that makes him a pervert then I must certainly be a pervert too, as Dylan's bed is much closer than 30' from mine. I have, at least dozens of times, fallen asleep on my living room floor with my nieces and nephews and sometimes their friends at the end the night yet have never had to fight the impulse to touch one in an inappropriate manner. "Correlation does not imply causation", you should look that up. But see, simply allowing people to draw extreme conclusions by only reporting part of the facts is much more interesting than the truth. Anyway, there was a time when post after post of such silly conclusions would not have gone unchallenged regardless of the subject. Are those days at the City really gone? It would appear so. Dwayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnthonyM83 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 What reasoning exactly Anthony? And what are the "many factors?" That he's different and spends time with kids? Serious question, not trying to bust your chops. What information do you have that didn't come from the popular media? When it comes down to it, I haven't reviewed the entirety to court evidence and procedures. That doesn't preclude me from having an opinion on the matter (I'm not handing him a verdict or sentence). But many times in my jobs, I've found that if it walks and talks like a duck, it is. Maybe it's me becoming cynical, but in a previous job I can't count the number of times people were accused of crimes, but they had very good explanations, were supported by friends/family, and I'd say almost every single time they were guilty. Yes, it's possible for him to be completely innocent, but realistically the combination of previous allegations, the ranch, calling things Jesus Juice, weirdness (not the best term, but there is association with SUCH eccentricness and other deviant behavior), not learning from previous accusations, points to improper stuff going on. In the end, I wasn't judging in court, but can't preclude me from my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief1C Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Holy crap LS, what's it been, two years since we've agreed on something? You may be coming around! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 The jails are full of innocent people- just ask them. How about the countless interviews of moms when they cry and complain that their gang bangin child, full of tatoos and an arrest record as long as their arm claim their cherub is not involved in gangs, they are a good boy? Should we believe them at face value? The man has admitted to "sleeping" in the same bed with children, had countless private encounters with kids at his ranch, yet we're supposed to believe he was just some pathetic, innocent "man-child"? Were some of the accusations money grabs- I'm sure. Problem is, a couple hundred grand easily could make them go away if he was truly innocent and only worried about bad PR. Tens of millions of dollars AND a confidentiality agreement means he was buying his freedom. I was born at night, but not last night. I call BULLSH*T. If someone wants to give him the benefit of the doubt- be my guest, but we're talking about children here. I truly hope he was innocent or there are some really screwed up kids in the world because of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 http://www.innocenceproject.org/ There have been 240 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. • The first DNA exoneration took place in 1989. Exonerations have been won in 34 states; since 2000, there have been 171 exonerations. • 17 of the 240 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row. • The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. The total number of years served is approximately 2,982. • The average age of exonerees at the time of their wrongful convictions was 26. • Since 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused. Tens of millions of dollars AND a confidentiality agreement means he was buying his freedom. I was born at night, but not last night. I call BULLSH*T. Given the choice of spending tens of millions of dollars on bloodsucking lawyers to gamble on your freedom, or tens of millions of dollars on a settlement to guarantee your freedom, which would you do? It's easy to pass judgement based on appearances, but the fact is that only an idiot would take that gamble if he didn't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief1C Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Michael Jackson -- The 911 Call http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-the-911-call/ TMZ has just received a tape of the Michael Jackson 911 call made yesterday at 12:21 PM from Michael's house in Holmby Hills, Ca. The person who makes the call says Jackson was not breathing and unconscious. Jackson was not responding to CPR. The caller says the doctor on scene -- Dr. Conrad Murray -- was the only witness -- "The doctor has been the only one here." Oh.. It gives the name... My first guess would have been Dr. Kevorkian! Emergency Workers Felt Jackson Dead at Scene http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/26/emergency-wo...scene/#comments When EMTs arrived at Michael Jackson's home yesterday, the medics wanted to pronounce him dead on the scene -- but Michael's personal doctor refused to let them "call it" -- this according to sources close to the situation. When EMTs arrived there was evidence someone had been performing CPR on Michael for "quite some time." There was evidence of Lidocaine -- an old-school drug that can be used to treat disturbances in the heart's rhythm. Medics took over performing CPR but determined Jackson was lifeless -- and wanted to call the coroner to pick up the body. We're told Jackson was flat-lined when EMTs arrived. But our sources say M.J.'s doc demanded EMTs continue performing CPR anyway, and demanded that they take Michael to the hospital. Once they arrived at UCLA, we're told Jackson's doc continued to personally administer CPR -- even though it was clear Jackson was already gone. Hrmmmm.. Gotta wonder, if maybe, perhaps.. I can't wait to see the tox results! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDP Posted July 5, 2009 Share Posted July 5, 2009 dimebag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBEMT Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 What was the date of conviction again? I tried Googling it but got nothing, but you seem to have some inside information...care to share? Dwayne OJ wasn't convicted either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 I heartily concur with your actions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Star Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Now that they're televising the funeral 'celebration gala event', it's time to 'fess up and publicly admit: 1) How many of you out there in forum land tried to get tickets to attend in person? 2) How many of you out there in forum land sat glued to the 'boob tube' and watched it? For the record, I didn't try to get any tickets and I didn't watch it on TV...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts