Barbra Streisand FINALLY issues a full apology for defending friend Michael Jackson

[smotherb]

10 hours ago, direction BANGKOK said:

I know what you mean. I was taking that kind of thing into consideration though. 

 

It is just too far fetched for me. Anything is possible, but you have mothers completely ruining their lives and credibility in the documentary. It is hard to believe a performance like all that would even be possible if it was all made up. 

 

Put it this way, any reasonable person would have some serious questions about this as a casual onlooker. In the documentary the questions do seem to get answered in very convincing ways however. 

Have you ever seen those little girl beauty pageants and watched their mothers? Look at the millions spent to fraudulently buy their kid's way into colleges--parents can do crazy things to get what THEY want for their children.

[smotherb]

9 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

 

I am not convinced of anything but I saw interviews where MJ admitted it at the time so the parents had full knowledge...they gave their consent for pajama parties with a 40-year old man.

Why? Your guess is as good as mine but $$$is usually on the short list.

 

Uhh? You saw it but are not convinced? And, "they gave their consent." Isn't that just what I said?

[ShortTimed]

Uhh? You saw it but are not convinced? And, "they gave their consent." Isn't that just what I said?

 

My post must not have been clearly worded. I saw interviews with MJ where he admitted having children sleep in his bed.

 

Those same interviews included the fact that the various parents were aware their sons were sleeping in the bed of MJ.

 

Obviously, I am convinced that they were sleeping in his bed.

 

I am not convinced that sexual assault was taking place since a criminal investigation and court proceedings could not prove that. I can have an opinion but that is all.

[smotherb]

1 minute ago, ShortTimed said:

 

My post must not have been clearly worded. I saw interviews with MJ where he admitted having children sleep in his bed.

Those same interviews included the fact that the various parents were aware their sons were sleeping in the bed of MJ.

Obviously, I am convinced that they were sleeping in his bed.

 

Sleeping in the same bed and having sex are not the same thing. 

[ShortTimed]

Sleeping in the same bed and having sex are not the same thing. 

My point exactly.

I agree with you.

[marcusarelus]

2 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Sleeping in the same bed and having sex are not the same thing. 

You are kidding right?

[tifino]

8 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Sleeping in the same bed and having sex are not the same thing. 

Clinton also evaded the admitting by claiming that Oral was not sex!

[smotherb]

1 minute ago, marcusarelus said:

You are kidding right?

I have to ask you the same thing? You seriously do not see the difference?

 

Let me put it this way; most people have slept with their mothers and not had sex. Most people have slept with friends or relatives without having sex. I have slept with my grandson and not had sex. 

 

Consequently, I have to believe you are kidding?

[smotherb]

1 minute ago, tifino said:

Clinton also evaded the admitting by claiming that Oral was not sex!

Did you walk to work or bring your lunch?

 

Clinton was trying to evade the fact by pushing the thought that a blow job was not sex. However, there was a blow job.

 

I am saying that it is possible to sleep with someone without having sex with them. 

 

Do you deny that possibility? If so, I posit the fact that many parents sleep with their children; do you think they have sex with them?

 

[tifino]

20 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Did you walk to work or bring your lunch?

 

Clinton was trying to evade the fact by pushing the thought that a blow job was not sex. However, there was a blow job.

 

I am saying that it is possible to sleep with someone without having sex with them. 

 

Do you deny that possibility? If so, I posit the fact that many parents sleep with their children; do you think they have sex with them?

 

in the doco.; MJ had BJs with the kiddie. MJ used the same evade as BC 

[Skallywag]

Agree that MJ is long gone and to posthumously make these "documentaries" is likely a staged for profit venture.  In Saudi Arabia 40+ year old men have married 8 year old girls.  Cannot condemn or prosecute these pedophilic actions because of some "religious" connection / belief? Ridiculous

[Timbob]

4 hours ago, smotherb said:

Let me put it this way; most people have slept with their mothers and not had sex. Most people have slept with friends or relatives without having sex. I have slept with my grandson and not had sex. 

MJ only invited boys into his bed. Not girls, not fat boys, not ginger boys. I wonder why? 

 

 

[marcusarelus]

5 hours ago, smotherb said:

I have to ask you the same thing? You seriously do not see the difference?

 

Let me put it this way; most people have slept with their mothers and not had sex. Most people have slept with friends or relatives without having sex. I have slept with my grandson and not had sex. 

 

Consequently, I have to believe you are kidding?

I doubt anyone would compare Micheal Jackson with the the abused children's mother or father. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by marcusarelus

[smotherb]

4 hours ago, Timbob said:

MJ only invited boys into his bed. Not girls, not fat boys, not ginger boys. I wonder why? 

 

 

Wonder all you want.  I just hope you do not think that video is Jackson.

 

I do not know what went on in Jackson's bed with those boys and neither do you.

 

However, Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 in a court of law and Wade Robeson, one of his accusers now, testified in Jackson's defense. 

 

So, until more than the he said she said of that documentary comes out; I will withhold my condemnation.

 

In case you haven't noticed, I am not arguing what went on--as I said, I do not know and I have seen no definitive evidence--I am simply arguing that you do not have to have sex with someone just because you sleep with them.

 

 

[smotherb]

3 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

I doubt anyone would compare Micheal Jackson with the the abused children's mother or father. 

Off you go on another tangent.

 

I am not comparing Michael Jackson with the abused children's mother or father.

 

Do you not understand?

 

I am saying you, me, anyone; can sleep with a child and it does not mean we had sex with them. 

 

Is that too complicated?

 

[Timbob]

 

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

Wonder all you want.  I just hope you do not think that video is Jackson.

 

I do not know what went on in Jackson's bed with those boys and neither do you.

 

However, Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 in a court of law and Wade Robeson, one of his accusers now, testified in Jackson's defense. 

 

So, until more than the he said she said of that documentary comes out; I will withhold my condemnation.

Nobody will ever know with 100% certainty. That's true of almost all such cases of child abuse, rape, etc. There are seldom any witnesses to these crimes. That doesn't mean we have to just move along and let it be, even if the accused is dead - as some here are suggesting.

 

What "definitive evidence" do you want?

 

Yes, Wade Robson did testify in Jackson's '05 defense. If you watch the documentary you will hear his reasons why. It's also fairly common for sexual abuse victims to take a long time (well into adulthood) to fully understand what happened to them and to seek justice.

 

Plus it's a lot more than he said / he said. The two guys in the documentary are compelling witnesses, as are their family members. Watch the documentary and you may well agree. Then we have the accuser from the 2005 case, plus Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993), and a few more besides. Sure they could all be lying, but I don't believe so. 

 

P.S. Yes, I'm aware that is not Michael Jackson in the video ????

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, Timbob said:

 

Nobody will ever know with 100% certainty. That's true of almost all such cases of child abuse, rape, etc. There are seldom any witnesses to these crimes. That doesn't mean we have to just move along and let it be, even if the accused is dead - as some here are suggesting.

 

What "definitive evidence" do you want?

 

Yes, Wade Robson did testify in Jackson's '05 defense. If you watch the documentary you will hear his reasons why. It's also fairly common for sexual abuse victims to take a long time (well into adulthood) to fully understand what happened to them and to seek justice.

 

Plus it's a lot more than he said / he said. The two guys in the documentary are compelling witnesses, as are their family members. Watch the documentary and you may well agree. Then we have the accuser from the 2005 case, plus Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993), and a few more besides. Sure they could all be lying, but I don't believe so. 

 

P.S. Yes, I'm aware that is not Michael Jackson in the video ????

100%? Only thing 100% is death. I am more likely to believe a court of law than a documentary, but feel free to believe whatever you want.   

[ShortTimed]

 
Nobody will ever know with 100% certainty. That's true of almost all such cases of child abuse, rape, etc. There are seldom any witnesses to these crimes. That doesn't mean we have to just move along and let it be, even if the accused is dead - as some here are suggesting.
 
What "definitive evidence" do you want?
 
Yes, Wade Robson did testify in Jackson's '05 defense. If you watch the documentary you will hear his reasons why. It's also fairly common for sexual abuse victims to take a long time (well into adulthood) to fully understand what happened to them and to seek justice.
 
Plus it's a lot more than he said / he said. The two guys in the documentary are compelling witnesses, as are their family members. Watch the documentary and you may well agree. Then we have the accuser from the 2005 case, plus Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993), and a few more besides. Sure they could all be lying, but I don't believe so. 
 
P.S. Yes, I'm aware that is not Michael Jackson in the video [emoji846]

Did they provide a timeline of when the press became aware of the Jordi Chandler settlement? Was it made known to the public in 1993 or later?

Thanks

[Timbob]

3 hours ago, smotherb said:

100%? Only thing 100% is death. I am more likely to believe a court of law than a documentary, but feel free to believe whatever you want.   

As I said previously, being found not guilty is not proof of innocence. If he was tried again based on the testimonies of these men then he would likely be found guilty.  

 

You have not even watched the documentary. Fine. Remain (willfully) ignorant. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Timbob

[Timbob]

2 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

 

Did they provide a timeline of when the press became aware of the Jordi Chandler settlement? Was it made known to the public in 1993 or later?

Thanks

 

I don't understand what you're getting at.

[HuskerDo]

She's another Hollywood Kook! Why do people care what anyone in Hollywood says or thinks? They should stick to their craft be it singing or whatever. Their "opinions" are just that. Everyone had an opinion. Why give theirs any more weight?

[ShortTimed]

As I said previously, being found not guilty is not proof of innocence. If he was tried again based on the testimonies of these men then he would likely be found guilty.  
 
You have not even watched the documentary. Fine. Remain (willfully) ignorant. 

The documentary is an opinion piece with no responsibility to be accurate like a court of law. The MJ family could make their own documentary with a skilled director to make the opposite case. Besides I don’t have enough interest in the topic of did he or didn’t he.

Obviously we will never know.

As for the entire Hollywood thing, I agree and really think its even worse when they are involved in political opinion. If they want to donate money to further a cause then great but do so quietly and not like Angelina Jolie.

[ShortTimed]

Hah!

 

I just looked at the title of this thread and its about Barbra Streisand comments.

 

I am the only poster who has been on topic.

[Timbob]

2 hours ago, ShortTimed said:

Hah!

 

I just looked at the title of this thread and its about Barbra Streisand comments.

 

I am the only poster who has been on topic.

You sure did. You defended someone defending pedophilia. That's nothing to be proud of!

 

At least Barbara Streisand later apologised for her disgraceful comments.

[ShortTimed]

You sure did. You defended someone defending pedophilia. That's nothing to be proud of!
 
At least Barbara Streisand later apologised for her disgraceful comments.

I defended someones right to have and voice their own opinion and defend a friend.

And please, go back to your life and stop waiting for an apology from me.
Its not going to happen.

[smotherb]

On 3/28/2019 at 12:18 AM, Timbob said:

As I said previously, being found not guilty is not proof of innocence. If he was tried again based on the testimonies of these men then he would likely be found guilty.  

 

You have not even watched the documentary. Fine. Remain (willfully) ignorant. 

I do not believe I said Jackson was proved innocent, but I did say he was found not guilty. 

 

Do you believe any video you see, or just ones which support your beliefs? 

 

You will have to forgive me if I do not recognize your legal qualifications to prejudge the result of a trail.  

 

Now you have called me ignorant. Why, because I do not agree with you?  Somehow, I think agreeing with you would . . . 

[smotherb]

On 3/27/2019 at 8:29 AM, tifino said:

in the doco.; MJ had BJs with the kiddie. MJ used the same evade as BC 

Oh, so the "doco" is in fact exactly what happened? So, you believe all documentaries, or just this one?

 

Do you have any idea of the reasons documentaries are made?

 

Sometimes it is the reveal a truth, but sometimes it is only to generate interest and accrue whatever benefit can be derived.

 

Of course, there can be many other reasons, but those two cover our discussion rather well.

 

 

[spidermike007]

On 3/26/2019 at 12:16 PM, ShortTimed said:

 

Well it can equal innocence and it often equals innocence, but I will choose the findings of a court of law over a made for profit TV program any day. The former has an obligation to the truth.

In MJ case, the more I read, the harder it is to believe complete innocence...and we have seen an expensive defense team win a victory where none was deserved...so maybe you are right.


 

 

 

I tend to disagree, when it comes to trusting the court of law. The US justice system is incredibly corrupt and compromised. If you have millions to throw at a legal team, more than likely they can create some doubt in the mind of at least one juror. How is that not corrupt? How does that equate with "justice"? The same charges, with the same evidence results in a guilty verdict, for someone like most of us, who do not have $5 million or more to pay a legal team of men and women who are specifically hired with deceit, deception, trickery, and disingenuousness in mind, when it comes to creating that doubt. It has nothing to do with justice, fair play, honesty, integrity, or the search for the truth, and everything to do with manipulating the system to gain a positive result for the rich client, who then becomes another person who is above the law. Think OJ Simpson, for example.

 

From my perspective, the possibility that MJ is not innocent, is more likely than an Alaskan native preferring  vegan brownies, over Copper River salmon.

[ShortTimed]

 
I tend to disagree, when it comes to trusting the court of law. The US justice system is incredibly corrupt and compromised. If you have millions to throw at a legal team, more than likely they can create some doubt in the mind of at least one juror. How is that not corrupt? How does that equate with "justice"? The same charges, with the same evidence results in a guilty verdict, for someone like most of us, who do not have $5 million or more to pay a legal team of men and women who are specifically hired with deceit, deception, trickery, and disingenuousness in mind, when it comes to creating that doubt. It has nothing to do with justice, fair play, honesty, integrity, or the search for the truth, and everything to do with manipulating the system to gain a positive result for the rich client, who then becomes another person who is above the law. Think OJ Simpson, for example.
 
From my perspective, the possibility that MJ is not innocent, is more likely than an Alaskan native preferring  vegan brownies, over Copper River salmon.

Haha.

Suppose you are right.

Jussie Smallett case seems to support your opinion on corrupt judicial system.

[smotherb]

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

I tend to disagree, when it comes to trusting the court of law. The US justice system is incredibly corrupt and compromised. If you have millions to throw at a legal team, more than likely they can create some doubt in the mind of at least one juror. How is that not corrupt? How does that equate with "justice"? The same charges, with the same evidence results in a guilty verdict, for someone like most of us, who do not have $5 million or more to pay a legal team of men and women who are specifically hired with deceit, deception, trickery, and disingenuousness in mind, when it comes to creating that doubt. It has nothing to do with justice, fair play, honesty, integrity, or the search for the truth, and everything to do with manipulating the system to gain a positive result for the rich client, who then becomes another person who is above the law. Think OJ Simpson, for example.

 

From my perspective, the possibility that MJ is not innocent, is more likely than an Alaskan native preferring  vegan brownies, over Copper River salmon.

Fine, we have your perspective, but I posit your perspective does not make it so.

 

Granted, a court decision can be influenced by funding. 

 

However, it is a fact that documentaries can be biased and self-serving?  

 

None of us were in the bedroom with Jackson and those boys.  

 

Do you not subscribe to the presumption of innocence?

 

There has been no proof beyond a reasonable--court adjudicated--doubt.