GRcade

Pedz wrote:I guess like most things involving rape/molestation is that is monumentally difficult to prove and the parents thought that at least this way they get something, it also means they can pay the ridiculous prices for mental help for their children.

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:I didn't watch all the video but, from what I saw, I didn't find the director to be 'creepy'. I do however question yet another accusation being made against Michael Jackson, this time by people who previously testified for him. This is all very sad and tricky to deal with, and so I'll just say this: it was lovely seeing Charlotte Hawkins again.

He is so creepy imo and really annoying. He so arrogant! Just look at his body language and his tone when he's accusing MJ.
Also his annoying accent and bald head just creeps me out. U can tell he's a bad person

You can tell the director's a bad person because of his accent and bald head.

You cannot tell that the guy who had to pay off scores of children because he sexually abused them is a bad person.

k

Like Piers said, in America there is a suing culture so it is not uncommon to pay people off to get rid of the problem...and when you are worth that much, 22million is nothing.
Anyway lets go to the other side and ask the opposite question? If you really were molested then why take the money and run?

Rocsteady wrote:

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:I didn't watch all the video but, from what I saw, I didn't find the director to be 'creepy'. I do however question yet another accusation being made against Michael Jackson, this time by people who previously testified for him. This is all very sad and tricky to deal with, and so I'll just say this: it was lovely seeing Charlotte Hawkins again.

He is so creepy imo and really annoying. He so arrogant! Just look at his body language and his tone when he's accusing MJ.
Also his annoying accent and bald head just creeps me out. U can tell he's a bad person

You can tell the director's a bad person because of his accent and bald head.

You cannot tell that the guy who had to pay off scores of children because he sexually abused them is a bad person.

k

Like Piers said, in America there is a suing culture so it is not uncommon to pay people off to get rid of the problem...and when you are worth that much, 22million is nothing.
Anyway lets go to the other side and ask the opposite question? If you really were molested then why take the money and run?

Jesus man. Maybe because you don't want to relive the trauma and have to have your name plastered everywhere with rabid MJ fans about? You can't say how you would act in such a situation. Taking the money probably seems like the 'easy' option in the scenario.

Why would you pay people off if you were guilty? Is it just a massive coincidence that there were multiple accusers? That he slept in a bed with children? Why were they all targeting MJ and not any other celebrity?

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:U can tell a persons character from their looks and body language. In this case we have more than that! Collaborating with these individuals to make a documentary and not maintaining neutral I.e. going on tv shows and stating MJ is a pedo as a fact
Thank god Piers caught him out

Rocsteady wrote:I couldn't give a gooseberry fool about the director.

How much pressure do you think it takes to have children testify in favour of you when you're the biggest celebrity in the world and even your own mother seems to favour said celeb over you?

I love how it's just a coincidence that MJ came into contact with so many cute young boys.

You're believing a paedophile over multiple victims because he was immensely talented and it's pretty strawberry floated up.

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Jenuall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Ok, fair play you've convinced me.

Jenuall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Ok, fair play you've convinced me.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Ok, fair play you've convinced me.

Don't forget his funny accent. That's the real giveaway.

Pedz wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Jawa's bald, but he is the nicest person ever. Guess he's not really and is massive scum. Jawa you are a bad bald person. And you have a beard and beards are for people who like to hide things.

Pedz wrote:[

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Jawa's bald, but he is the nicest person ever. Guess he's not really and is massive scum. Jawa you are a bad bald person. And you have a beard and beards are for people who like to hide things.

Pedz wrote::lol:

Man, where is that thread?