The great Chris Cornell pays tribute!
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Candlelight vigil for the dearly departed
Too soon? Just stirring the piss pot[/quote]
Possibly, but damn funny.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Only the parties in the room know what happened.[/quote]
Glad you admitted that.
[quote]
In the real world, there isn’t much that amounts to “infallible proof” - just ask all the guys on death row that were freed or later proven innocent. [/quote]
Look, these kids never once even acted like the victims of rape. REAL rape victims are often ashamed, one of the reasons the other case you mentioned involves 40 year old circumstances yet no one called the cops.
[quote]
LOL @ “handled documents”. I handled THE claim - the coverage aspect. That means I reviewed the ENTIRE file, including everything produced in the criminal case. All the testimony. What does this mean you might ask? It means I have what they commonly refer to as an “informed opinion” and you do not. [/quote]
What information do you have that shows these kids were without a doubt raped?
LOL @ “I read files so that makes me right with no proof or facts”.
[quote]
And the considered opinion of those that were “informed”, made a collective decision to pay A LOT of money to settle the case. [/quote]
He’s a celebrity. How much did Kobe Bryant pay in that divorce? How does that compare to the average citizen? You have no point with this just because they paid out.
The general public would likely do what you are doing now and find him guilty if it were not settled. He chose to pay up to avoid that possibility. That doesn’t show guilt.
TAKING THE MONEY AFTER YOUR KID GETS RAPED BY A MAN WHO COULD DO IT AGAIN DOES. [/quote]
Wrong as usual
I didn’t “admit” anything; it’s the nature of such crimes. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proving to be increasingly unreliable. There is very little we know for certain - even thing we believe we witnessed. But that’s not the point, and you’re off on some tangent as usual.
As for how we made our decision? We had all the testimony. We weigh the relative risk of the case and make decisions based on risk. “Without a doubt” raped? Well, first of all, the criminal standard is “reasonable doubt” which does not include “without a doubt” and the civil standard is “preponderance of evidence”. And in case you haven’t been following, I’m talking about the FIRST case against him, not the subsequent cases. The first case against him was pretty strong according to my memory.
The first child in question did not “act like he was raped”? Really. What is your reference for this observation? Please provide it or at least stop reaching up your cavernous ass in search of “arguments”.
How much did Kobe pay in his divorce? Really? And that’s relevant how? You wonder why I “talk down to you”? LOL. Kobe’s divorce settlement was a reflection of divorce law in the State of CA and has nothing to do with a criminal or civil case against MJ. But don’t let that stop ya.
As for “paying out”, we didn’t pay out lightly. It was a huge sum of money. It wasn’t “go away” or “nuisance” money or “cost of defense” money. It was a large sum. Millions. Although he may have funded some of the settlement out of his own money (I can’t recall), we paid millions and we didn’t pay it for them to “go away” for MJ’s benefit - we paid it based on our evaluation of the risk, which was based upon the available evidence.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Reading comprehension; I guess it wasn’t required to become a “doctor”.[/quote]
Gee, that’s twice now you have mentioned my job for absolutely no reason. What makes someone do that?..besides the lack of originality.
? Did Mike HAVE SEX WITH THEM???
You are claiming it makes perfect sense to you for a parent to have their kid raped and take a pay off instead of see the rapist punished.
I say bullshit.
People who are after money do that. People who care about their kids as the utmost priority don’t put them in the public eye and take a pay off while millions watch the rapist go unpunished.
Get real.
You have no authority to be barking like you do. You speak down to people…when I can’t see any reason for you to see yourself above anyone else unless by height alone. But you handled documents.
LOL[/quote]
I mention the Doctor thing b/c you claim to be one, when in fact not many people think of a Dentist as a “doctor” although they are in a technical sense, I guess. But moreover, I do not necessarily even believe you’re a dentist. I don’t find you particularly bright to be honest. Are we clear on that?
Moving on to your first fallacious argument; I made no claim that it “makes perfect sense… bla bla bla”. I illustrated the considerations that actually occur in these cases. Those considerations occur, they are undeniable, and not subject to your or my opinion - they are fact.
I speak down to you b/c your “arguments” are usually fallacious or illogical. You’re just not that smart in my opinion. [/quote]
?
Dude, I’ve met the people who run this site and they know me. Why the hell would I lie about it and exactly what benefit would it do me to list my personal info here?
I own my own practice now. Believe what you want, but bringing it up constantly like you do is fucking childish.
Yes, I am a doctor, Get the fuck over it. LOL at you thinking I was a Captain in the Air Force for no reason at that age.[/quote]
Get over it? I hardly stay awake at night and I could care less about the owners of this site as you call them. I just don’t think you’re terribly bright based upon how you argue your point in countless threads. You do not exactly make logical arguments. Logic is entirely lost upon you. It’s just my opinion, and we know about opinions, but it’s mine, I’m committed to it and I suggest you just get over it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Bill Conlin case:
It looks like this happened 40 years ago. The children are just now coming forward as adults. The two cases are not the same especially since it would make sense for an child to hide this and come forward years later.
That is not the same as parents taking a pay off when their kid gets raped.[/quote]
Well Einstein, if you could actually READ, you would have noticed that I did not hold the Conlin case up as an example of parents getting paid in lieu of justice. I held up the Conlin case as an illustration that IN REAL LIFE, people make considerations in lieu of their “pound of flesh”. These parents did not report the crime to spare their families (I believe it was a husband or two) AND the children. They just wanted to the whole thing to “go away”.
No one said “this is the same”. Who did you fuck to graduate from dental school? [/quote]
?
Uh, making a consideration to not make your kid the public face of “rape” is something like taking pay for not stopping a rapist who raped your kid while making your kid a public sensation?
The case you mentioned involved circumstances that happened in the 1970’s. It was a different society then where I am sure most rapes were kept silent because of feelings of shame. I don’t believe it is the exact same today even though rape is still an issue.
The two cases have NOTHING to do with each other so why mention it?[/quote]
This is why I don’t think you’re very bright. Rape is still very under reported. If you ever picked up a newspaper or read a book or an article, you’d know this. Maybe you have read it (like you’re reading my words) but you’re not comprehending it.
Here it is again for you: rape is under reported.
It’s under reported for a reason. I illustrated some of those reasons. The Conlin case is entirely instructive in that regard.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
The specifics of the Jackson scandal are that there were no leaks, so speculating on the risk of leaks is just that: speculation. We may as well make all private info public to avoid leaks in the first place, which defeats the purpose of privacy.
[/quote]
Well, insofar as the first claim, you are 100% wrong b/c someone from our company (probably a mail room clerk) sold MJ’s deposition transcript to one of the gossip rags for $10,000.
And you’re wrong about enough that I’m not going to cut and reply to each misunderstanding you have about my talking points. I don’t have the energy.
[/quote]
I was talking about leaking identities, not a deposition transcript (go back and check if I mentioned anything other than identities in the lead-up to that quote). If the identities were in that transcript, then anonymity was not maintained to begin with. Since I’m so completely wrong, let me ask you if releasing the identity of Jordan Chandler could be traced directly back to that transcript, or was his identity known before the deposition (and therefore before the leak you’re talking about)?
Again, I haven’t misunderstood any of your points, nor am I trying to twist them to secure a win …
I asked you to explain to me how you can equate public exposure with protective parenting, since most of what you said feeds into that. In this thread I’ve been obtuse, fallacious and selective, yet you don’t want to provide an answer to a very simple and glaring question.
[/quote]
I don’t recall the details of the leaks as to his identity. That case against MJ was strong. We paid lots of $$ and we didn’t do that lightly or for MJ’s benefit. And we’re so far astray, and I’m pretty disinterested such that I’ve forgotten our original arguing points. If you want to believe in the guy’s innocence, that’s your right. I don’t. Nothing will likely reconcile our respective opinions no matter how we couch this discussion. I’m busy with the guy that couldn’t make a logical connection if a tooth was hanging in the balance. The stuff out of his mouth is far more entertaining; you actually make sense even if I think we are misunderstanding each other on a point or two. Such is the nature of the internet.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You are making him sound as if his an innocent, not very smart boy man in most of your posts but I claim he is not innocent and very smart. We have to agree to disagree then. To claim that I say business acumen leads to sexual predatory behavior is so far of the mark I really do not know how to respond further.[/quote]
I said that because I really don’t know where else you were going with it. I mean, you haven’t explained to me where you were heading with it.
Jacko wasn’t that gifted in business: he was notorious for not being able to handle his own money and he was on his ass (by his standards) a few times in his career (not a coincidence that this happened when his record sales dropped: he needed a constant flow of cash because his expenses had outstripped his earnings). He was a supreme talent who made a ridiculous amount of money very young, and that’ll give a false impression of his business sense. At his height he would’ve had trouble giving money away.
He did not handle his financial affairs on his own: a procession of lawyers, accountants and financial advisors did that for him. As for the hangers-on and sycophants, well of course they’re going to say he’s smart. It’s the entertainment industry. However, I would not say that a man who dangles his own baby off a balcony in public is particularly intelligent or in touch with reality.
I would take his actions caught on film as a more accurate barometer of the guy’s character than a fawning interview from a fellow entertainer or someone on his payroll. That’s all.[/quote]
At this point, I’m no longer interested in the discussion; I’m just wondering which of MJs concerts you last attended and if you’ve properly preserved all your MJ memorabilia to protect its value.
After watching a few seasons of Pawn Stars now, I understand the importance of “condition” when it comes to memorabilia and such.
[/quote]
And so it begins…“no longer interested in the discussion” anymore, yet here you are showing a formidable fallacious streak of your own, in spite of energy levels too low to carry on. Just enough pep left to squeeze out an ad hominem. Holy hypocrisy, Batman![/quote]
Fair enough. I apologize.
But I thought there was a strong possibility you were quite the fan. Why else would you ignore the obvious?
At some point did these cases become about money? Certainly did. No argument there. Once that horse leaves the barn, it’s out. That doesn’t mean nothing happened. It just means people are greedy and when they get a chance to be compensated for a wrong, they are willing to do whatever.
Let me put this another way for you; the alleged victims of Sandusky have already retained some of the best civil attorneys in the State. Are you prepared to defend Sandusky’s presumed innocence on the same basis you defend MJ’s? Because people are looking to get paid?
[quote]biglifter wrote:
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Candlelight vigil for the dearly departed
Too soon? Just stirring the piss pot[/quote]
Possibly, but damn funny.
[/quote]
X2
[quote]admbaum wrote:
our society is effin sick. [/quote]
^ I’m about sick of this damn photo. If he was forgotten then he sure as shit wouldn’t be on my damn facebook wall posted by some idiot every 5 minutes or on every single forum I cruise through over the course of a week.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Bill Conlin case:
It looks like this happened 40 years ago. The children are just now coming forward as adults. The two cases are not the same especially since it would make sense for an child to hide this and come forward years later.
That is not the same as parents taking a pay off when their kid gets raped.[/quote]
Well Einstein, if you could actually READ, you would have noticed that I did not hold the Conlin case up as an example of parents getting paid in lieu of justice. I held up the Conlin case as an illustration that IN REAL LIFE, people make considerations in lieu of their “pound of flesh”. These parents did not report the crime to spare their families (I believe it was a husband or two) AND the children. They just wanted to the whole thing to “go away”.
No one said “this is the same”. Who did you fuck to graduate from dental school? [/quote]
?
Uh, making a consideration to not make your kid the public face of “rape” is something like taking pay for not stopping a rapist who raped your kid while making your kid a public sensation?
The case you mentioned involved circumstances that happened in the 1970’s. It was a different society then where I am sure most rapes were kept silent because of feelings of shame. I don’t believe it is the exact same today even though rape is still an issue.
The two cases have NOTHING to do with each other so why mention it?[/quote]
This is why I don’t think you’re very bright. Rape is still very under reported. If you ever picked up a newspaper or read a book or an article, you’d know this. Maybe you have read it (like you’re reading my words) but you’re not comprehending it.
Here it is again for you: rape is under reported.
It’s under reported for a reason. I illustrated some of those reasons. The Conlin case is entirely instructive in that regard. [/quote]
LOL
Dude, no one gives a shit if you don’t think I’m bright. There isn’t shit coming from your computer that is making you look like some master mind. Your own arguments or over-emotional and filled with nonsense. For instance, nowhere in that post did I even imply that rape today was NOT under-reported. I wrote that it was more in the dark in the 70’s compared to now. To even argue against that is ridiculous.
You seem to think you are just dropping knowledge bombs everywhere…but you aren’t…and hearing the exact same shit from you is boring and trite. That is why you keep bringing up the same issues whether anyone was discussing it or not…because you honestly don’t have shit else to harp on.
If you honestly see your own response here as so high above me in intellect, that just tells me exactly how far behind you are.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Bill Conlin case:
It looks like this happened 40 years ago. The children are just now coming forward as adults. The two cases are not the same especially since it would make sense for an child to hide this and come forward years later.
That is not the same as parents taking a pay off when their kid gets raped.[/quote]
Well Einstein, if you could actually READ, you would have noticed that I did not hold the Conlin case up as an example of parents getting paid in lieu of justice. I held up the Conlin case as an illustration that IN REAL LIFE, people make considerations in lieu of their “pound of flesh”. These parents did not report the crime to spare their families (I believe it was a husband or two) AND the children. They just wanted to the whole thing to “go away”.
No one said “this is the same”. Who did you fuck to graduate from dental school? [/quote]
?
Uh, making a consideration to not make your kid the public face of “rape” is something like taking pay for not stopping a rapist who raped your kid while making your kid a public sensation?
The case you mentioned involved circumstances that happened in the 1970’s. It was a different society then where I am sure most rapes were kept silent because of feelings of shame. I don’t believe it is the exact same today even though rape is still an issue.
The two cases have NOTHING to do with each other so why mention it?[/quote]
This is why I don’t think you’re very bright. Rape is still very under reported. If you ever picked up a newspaper or read a book or an article, you’d know this. Maybe you have read it (like you’re reading my words) but you’re not comprehending it.
Here it is again for you: rape is under reported.
It’s under reported for a reason. I illustrated some of those reasons. The Conlin case is entirely instructive in that regard. [/quote]
LOL
Dude, no one gives a shit if you don’t think I’m bright. There isn’t shit coming from your computer that is making you look like some master mind. Your own arguments or over-emotional and filled with nonsense. For instance, nowhere in that post did I even imply that rape today was NOT under-reported. I wrote that it was more in the dark in the 70’s compared to now. To even argue against that is ridiculous.
You seem to think you are just dropping knowledge bombs everywhere…but you aren’t…and hearing the exact same shit from you is boring and trite. That is why you keep bringing up the same issues whether anyone was discussing it or not…because you honestly don’t have shit else to harp on.
If you honestly see your own response here as so high above me in intellect, that just tells me exactly how far behind you are.[/quote]
listening to you use “trite” in a sentence was almost a belly buster but it’s too early in the morning. the other stuff you write amounts to you walking backwards, and frankly, you don’t even walk forwards too well so we can stop this before you fall down.
don’t take yourself so seriously lXf, very few others do.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Only the parties in the room know what happened.[/quote]
Glad you admitted that.
[quote]
In the real world, there isn’t much that amounts to “infallible proof” - just ask all the guys on death row that were freed or later proven innocent. [/quote]
Look, these kids never once even acted like the victims of rape. REAL rape victims are often ashamed, one of the reasons the other case you mentioned involves 40 year old circumstances yet no one called the cops.
[quote]
LOL @ “handled documents”. I handled THE claim - the coverage aspect. That means I reviewed the ENTIRE file, including everything produced in the criminal case. All the testimony. What does this mean you might ask? It means I have what they commonly refer to as an “informed opinion” and you do not. [/quote]
What information do you have that shows these kids were without a doubt raped?
LOL @ “I read files so that makes me right with no proof or facts”.
[quote]
And the considered opinion of those that were “informed”, made a collective decision to pay A LOT of money to settle the case. [/quote]
He’s a celebrity. How much did Kobe Bryant pay in that divorce? How does that compare to the average citizen? You have no point with this just because they paid out.
The general public would likely do what you are doing now and find him guilty if it were not settled. He chose to pay up to avoid that possibility. That doesn’t show guilt.
TAKING THE MONEY AFTER YOUR KID GETS RAPED BY A MAN WHO COULD DO IT AGAIN DOES. [/quote]
Wrong as usual
I didn’t “admit” anything; it’s the nature of such crimes. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proving to be increasingly unreliable. There is very little we know for certain - even thing we believe we witnessed. But that’s not the point, and you’re off on some tangent as usual.
As for how we made our decision? We had all the testimony. We weigh the relative risk of the case and make decisions based on risk. “Without a doubt” raped? Well, first of all, the criminal standard is “reasonable doubt” which does not include “without a doubt” and the civil standard is “preponderance of evidence”. And in case you haven’t been following, I’m talking about the FIRST case against him, not the subsequent cases. The first case against him was pretty strong according to my memory.
The first child in question did not “act like he was raped”? Really. What is your reference for this observation? Please provide it or at least stop reaching up your cavernous ass in search of “arguments”.
How much did Kobe pay in his divorce? Really? And that’s relevant how? You wonder why I “talk down to you”? LOL. Kobe’s divorce settlement was a reflection of divorce law in the State of CA and has nothing to do with a criminal or civil case against MJ. But don’t let that stop ya.
As for “paying out”, we didn’t pay out lightly. It was a huge sum of money. It wasn’t “go away” or “nuisance” money or “cost of defense” money. It was a large sum. Millions. Although he may have funded some of the settlement out of his own money (I can’t recall), we paid millions and we didn’t pay it for them to “go away” for MJ’s benefit - we paid it based on our evaluation of the risk, which was based upon the available evidence. [/quote]
What does any of this have to do with you showing us how you know the kids were all telling the truth? Paragraphs written…for this? How long did it takes those fingers to type all this crap?
Please provide us with the missing knowledge you apparently have that shows these kids were not lying. If you have none, kindly stop acting like your ass holish opinion is any better than anyone else’s here.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Only the parties in the room know what happened.[/quote]
Glad you admitted that.
[quote]
In the real world, there isn’t much that amounts to “infallible proof” - just ask all the guys on death row that were freed or later proven innocent. [/quote]
Look, these kids never once even acted like the victims of rape. REAL rape victims are often ashamed, one of the reasons the other case you mentioned involves 40 year old circumstances yet no one called the cops.
[quote]
LOL @ “handled documents”. I handled THE claim - the coverage aspect. That means I reviewed the ENTIRE file, including everything produced in the criminal case. All the testimony. What does this mean you might ask? It means I have what they commonly refer to as an “informed opinion” and you do not. [/quote]
What information do you have that shows these kids were without a doubt raped?
LOL @ “I read files so that makes me right with no proof or facts”.
[quote]
And the considered opinion of those that were “informed”, made a collective decision to pay A LOT of money to settle the case. [/quote]
He’s a celebrity. How much did Kobe Bryant pay in that divorce? How does that compare to the average citizen? You have no point with this just because they paid out.
The general public would likely do what you are doing now and find him guilty if it were not settled. He chose to pay up to avoid that possibility. That doesn’t show guilt.
TAKING THE MONEY AFTER YOUR KID GETS RAPED BY A MAN WHO COULD DO IT AGAIN DOES. [/quote]
Wrong as usual
I didn’t “admit” anything; it’s the nature of such crimes. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proving to be increasingly unreliable. There is very little we know for certain - even thing we believe we witnessed. But that’s not the point, and you’re off on some tangent as usual.
As for how we made our decision? We had all the testimony. We weigh the relative risk of the case and make decisions based on risk. “Without a doubt” raped? Well, first of all, the criminal standard is “reasonable doubt” which does not include “without a doubt” and the civil standard is “preponderance of evidence”. And in case you haven’t been following, I’m talking about the FIRST case against him, not the subsequent cases. The first case against him was pretty strong according to my memory.
The first child in question did not “act like he was raped”? Really. What is your reference for this observation? Please provide it or at least stop reaching up your cavernous ass in search of “arguments”.
How much did Kobe pay in his divorce? Really? And that’s relevant how? You wonder why I “talk down to you”? LOL. Kobe’s divorce settlement was a reflection of divorce law in the State of CA and has nothing to do with a criminal or civil case against MJ. But don’t let that stop ya.
As for “paying out”, we didn’t pay out lightly. It was a huge sum of money. It wasn’t “go away” or “nuisance” money or “cost of defense” money. It was a large sum. Millions. Although he may have funded some of the settlement out of his own money (I can’t recall), we paid millions and we didn’t pay it for them to “go away” for MJ’s benefit - we paid it based on our evaluation of the risk, which was based upon the available evidence. [/quote]
What does any of this have to do with you showing us how you know the kids were all telling the truth? Paragraphs written…for this? How long did it takes those fingers to type all this crap?
Please provide us with the missing knowledge you apparently have that shows these kids were not lying. If you have none, kindly stop acting like your ass holish opinion is any better than anyone else’s here.[/quote]
“Informed opinion” Spinks! Informed!
Me: Read all available evidence, discussed for hours with other informed professionals, reached a consensus, and has an opinion.
You: Listened to some TV, read a newspaper article or two (within your limited ability), and has an opinion. Still can’t fucking moonwalk though.
Obviously, those paragraphs didn’t penetrate the hot dog rolls on the back of your neck, but I bet you understand the intricacies of the Hammer Strength decline bench press.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
The specifics of the Jackson scandal are that there were no leaks, so speculating on the risk of leaks is just that: speculation. We may as well make all private info public to avoid leaks in the first place, which defeats the purpose of privacy.
[/quote]
Well, insofar as the first claim, you are 100% wrong b/c someone from our company (probably a mail room clerk) sold MJ’s deposition transcript to one of the gossip rags for $10,000.
And you’re wrong about enough that I’m not going to cut and reply to each misunderstanding you have about my talking points. I don’t have the energy.
[/quote]
I was talking about leaking identities, not a deposition transcript (go back and check if I mentioned anything other than identities in the lead-up to that quote). If the identities were in that transcript, then anonymity was not maintained to begin with. Since I’m so completely wrong, let me ask you if releasing the identity of Jordan Chandler could be traced directly back to that transcript, or was his identity known before the deposition (and therefore before the leak you’re talking about)?
Again, I haven’t misunderstood any of your points, nor am I trying to twist them to secure a win …
I asked you to explain to me how you can equate public exposure with protective parenting, since most of what you said feeds into that. In this thread I’ve been obtuse, fallacious and selective, yet you don’t want to provide an answer to a very simple and glaring question.
[/quote]
I don’t recall the details of the leaks as to his identity. That case against MJ was strong. We paid lots of $$ and we didn’t do that lightly or for MJ’s benefit. And we’re so far astray, and I’m pretty disinterested such that I’ve forgotten our original arguing points. If you want to believe in the guy’s innocence, that’s your right. I don’t. Nothing will likely reconcile our respective opinions no matter how we couch this discussion. I’m busy with the guy that couldn’t make a logical connection if a tooth was hanging in the balance. The stuff out of his mouth is far more entertaining; you actually make sense even if I think we are misunderstanding each other on a point or two. Such is the nature of the internet. [/quote]
It was a rhetorical question, as I know Chandler’s identity was released before the first deposition was aired. A transcript can’t be made before the deposition…so his identity wasn’t leaked through the transcript…
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
The specifics of the Jackson scandal are that there were no leaks, so speculating on the risk of leaks is just that: speculation. We may as well make all private info public to avoid leaks in the first place, which defeats the purpose of privacy.
[/quote]
Well, insofar as the first claim, you are 100% wrong b/c someone from our company (probably a mail room clerk) sold MJ’s deposition transcript to one of the gossip rags for $10,000.
And you’re wrong about enough that I’m not going to cut and reply to each misunderstanding you have about my talking points. I don’t have the energy.
[/quote]
I was talking about leaking identities, not a deposition transcript (go back and check if I mentioned anything other than identities in the lead-up to that quote). If the identities were in that transcript, then anonymity was not maintained to begin with. Since I’m so completely wrong, let me ask you if releasing the identity of Jordan Chandler could be traced directly back to that transcript, or was his identity known before the deposition (and therefore before the leak you’re talking about)?
Again, I haven’t misunderstood any of your points, nor am I trying to twist them to secure a win …
I asked you to explain to me how you can equate public exposure with protective parenting, since most of what you said feeds into that. In this thread I’ve been obtuse, fallacious and selective, yet you don’t want to provide an answer to a very simple and glaring question.
[/quote]
I don’t recall the details of the leaks as to his identity. That case against MJ was strong. We paid lots of $$ and we didn’t do that lightly or for MJ’s benefit. And we’re so far astray, and I’m pretty disinterested such that I’ve forgotten our original arguing points. If you want to believe in the guy’s innocence, that’s your right. I don’t. Nothing will likely reconcile our respective opinions no matter how we couch this discussion. I’m busy with the guy that couldn’t make a logical connection if a tooth was hanging in the balance. The stuff out of his mouth is far more entertaining; you actually make sense even if I think we are misunderstanding each other on a point or two. Such is the nature of the internet. [/quote]
It was a rhetorical question, as I know Chandler’s identity was released before the first deposition was aired. A transcript can’t be made before the deposition…so his identity wasn’t leaked through the transcript…[/quote]
State your case; you’re implying his family released his identity for financial gain. My reply to that would be that his identity does not increase financial gain. He’s a John Doe in such a civil suit.
If you’re not implying his family released his identity, than it was MJ’s camp - and the purpose of that would only be sinister and to bring pressure to bear on the kid and the family or, it was the media.
What’s your point in the context of this discussion?
If you’re claiming the family released the identity, provide your source - because I don’t see the financial gain from that. And we were discussing financial gain right?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You are making him sound as if his an innocent, not very smart boy man in most of your posts but I claim he is not innocent and very smart. We have to agree to disagree then. To claim that I say business acumen leads to sexual predatory behavior is so far of the mark I really do not know how to respond further.[/quote]
I said that because I really don’t know where else you were going with it. I mean, you haven’t explained to me where you were heading with it.
Jacko wasn’t that gifted in business: he was notorious for not being able to handle his own money and he was on his ass (by his standards) a few times in his career (not a coincidence that this happened when his record sales dropped: he needed a constant flow of cash because his expenses had outstripped his earnings). He was a supreme talent who made a ridiculous amount of money very young, and that’ll give a false impression of his business sense. At his height he would’ve had trouble giving money away.
He did not handle his financial affairs on his own: a procession of lawyers, accountants and financial advisors did that for him. As for the hangers-on and sycophants, well of course they’re going to say he’s smart. It’s the entertainment industry. However, I would not say that a man who dangles his own baby off a balcony in public is particularly intelligent or in touch with reality.
I would take his actions caught on film as a more accurate barometer of the guy’s character than a fawning interview from a fellow entertainer or someone on his payroll. That’s all.[/quote]
At this point, I’m no longer interested in the discussion; I’m just wondering which of MJs concerts you last attended and if you’ve properly preserved all your MJ memorabilia to protect its value.
After watching a few seasons of Pawn Stars now, I understand the importance of “condition” when it comes to memorabilia and such.
[/quote]
And so it begins…“no longer interested in the discussion” anymore, yet here you are showing a formidable fallacious streak of your own, in spite of energy levels too low to carry on. Just enough pep left to squeeze out an ad hominem. Holy hypocrisy, Batman![/quote]
Fair enough. I apologize.
But I thought there was a strong possibility you were quite the fan. Why else would you ignore the obvious? [/quote]
Nope. I had copies of Thriller and Bad when I was twelve, thirteen years old. Stopped listening to him way before the scandal broke. Everything I said in the above post could be seen in every paper. Lumping me in with the diehards who protest his innocence is a huge assumption on your part, especially when I didn’t exactly paint a glowing picture of him in the above post.
What is the “obvious”? If it’s the expertise you’ve gained from handling an element of the case that I keep “glossing over”, then I really don’t think you want me to go there…not after you admitted you can’t remember much about it.
[quote]
At some point did these cases become about money? Certainly did. No argument there. Once that horse leaves the barn, it’s out. That doesn’t mean nothing happened. It just means people are greedy and when they get a chance to be compensated for a wrong, they are willing to do whatever. [/quote]
Precisely. “They are willing to do whatever”…which is exactly the reason why I question Jackson’s guilt. There is too much evidence of “whatever” being a prime motivator.
[quote]
Let me put this another way for you; the alleged victims of Sandusky have already retained some of the best civil attorneys in the State. Are you prepared to defend Sandusky’s presumed innocence on the same basis you defend MJ’s? Because people are looking to get paid?[/quote]
Irrelevant to this discussion, as was OJ and the Conlin case. Different circumstances entirely. At some point the parents allowed the kids to spend unsupervised time with Jackson. The crucial difference is that Sandusky’s job gave him access to the victims; he didn’t invite them to a slumber party so they could all see his “defensive end” nor did he ply the parents with gifts and at least the implied promise of fame and fortune by giving the kids parts in his music videos and concerts.
Also, you’re ignoring the fact that many people are shameless parasites and have no qualms about muddying their own reputations in pursuit of a quick buck, let alone wrecking someone else’s good name. I don’t have to tell you that. I’m sure you’ve seen it for yourself.
How we got from Whitney to the tree jumper Michael is unknown to me but Roybot I do have a question for you; do you care to explain how a young child could so accurately describe an adult’s penis? Answer that question, that question only.
Yes, those parents were morally bankrupt. Yes, they were prepared to be the “squeaky wheel” to get what they wanted. They may have even turned a blind eye to what was occurring, or what they suspected might have been occurring, between their son and MJ. None of that means nothing inappropriate occurred. You do understand that simple premise don’t you? I know Spinks doesn’t.
So tell me, how does the kid describe MJ’s cock with such remarkable accuracy? We’re talking actual locations of identifying marks.
I’m not sure about some other people here (I’m mocking his passive/aggressive thing), but I know for a fact that no young child can identify and describe my cock, and I’m hoping no young child could describe and identify yours.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You are making him sound as if his an innocent, not very smart boy man in most of your posts but I claim he is not innocent and very smart. We have to agree to disagree then. To claim that I say business acumen leads to sexual predatory behavior is so far of the mark I really do not know how to respond further.[/quote]
I said that because I really don’t know where else you were going with it. I mean, you haven’t explained to me where you were heading with it.
Jacko wasn’t that gifted in business: he was notorious for not being able to handle his own money and he was on his ass (by his standards) a few times in his career (not a coincidence that this happened when his record sales dropped: he needed a constant flow of cash because his expenses had outstripped his earnings). He was a supreme talent who made a ridiculous amount of money very young, and that’ll give a false impression of his business sense. At his height he would’ve had trouble giving money away.
He did not handle his financial affairs on his own: a procession of lawyers, accountants and financial advisors did that for him. As for the hangers-on and sycophants, well of course they’re going to say he’s smart. It’s the entertainment industry. However, I would not say that a man who dangles his own baby off a balcony in public is particularly intelligent or in touch with reality.
I would take his actions caught on film as a more accurate barometer of the guy’s character than a fawning interview from a fellow entertainer or someone on his payroll. That’s all.[/quote]
At this point, I’m no longer interested in the discussion; I’m just wondering which of MJs concerts you last attended and if you’ve properly preserved all your MJ memorabilia to protect its value.
After watching a few seasons of Pawn Stars now, I understand the importance of “condition” when it comes to memorabilia and such.
[/quote]
And so it begins…“no longer interested in the discussion” anymore, yet here you are showing a formidable fallacious streak of your own, in spite of energy levels too low to carry on. Just enough pep left to squeeze out an ad hominem. Holy hypocrisy, Batman![/quote]
Fair enough. I apologize.
But I thought there was a strong possibility you were quite the fan. Why else would you ignore the obvious? [/quote]
Nope. I had copies of Thriller and Bad when I was twelve, thirteen years old. Stopped listening to him way before the scandal broke. Everything I said in the above post could be seen in every paper. Lumping me in with the diehards who protest his innocence is a huge assumption on your part, especially when I didn’t exactly paint a glowing picture of him in the above post.
[quote]
At some point did these cases become about money? Certainly did. No argument there. Once that horse leaves the barn, it’s out. That doesn’t mean nothing happened. It just means people are greedy and when they get a chance to be compensated for a wrong, they are willing to do whatever. [/quote]
Precisely. “They are willing to do whatever”…which is exactly the reason why I question Jackson’s guilt. There is too much evidence of “whatever” being a prime motivator.
[quote]
Let me put this another way for you; the alleged victims of Sandusky have already retained some of the best civil attorneys in the State. Are you prepared to defend Sandusky’s presumed innocence on the same basis you defend MJ’s? Because people are looking to get paid?[/quote]
Irrelevant to this discussion, as was OJ and the Conlin case. Different circumstances entirely. At some point the parents allowed the kids to spend unsupervised time with Jackson. The crucial difference is that Sandusky’s job gave him access to the victims; he didn’t invite them to a slumber party so they could all see his “defensive end” nor did he ply the parents with gifts and at least the implied promise of fame and fortune by giving the kids parts in his music videos and concerts.
Also, you’re ignoring the fact that many people are shameless and have no qualms about muddying their own reputations in pursuit of a quick buck, let alone wrecking someone elses’s good name. I don’t have to tell you that. I’m sure you’ve seen it for yourself.[/quote]
you’ve absolutely missed the point and misrepresented parts of the point;
first, you’ve implied b/c someone was money motivated and willing to play dirty, that in your mind (at least in MJ case) that casts doubt on the accuser. I raised the Sandusky case to illustrate that those “victims” have already retained counsel. Do you feel the same way about Sandusky’s presumed innocence? In addition, there were families that ABSOLUTELY allowed their children to go off with Sandusky, including overnight stays. You’re wrong.
Of course OJ is irrelevant…I was making a joke. Duh.
Conlin is not irrelevant b/c it was raised in a limited sense to illustrate that rape is under-reported for a number of reasons.
Did the 1st family play dirty? Yes. I’ve conceded that already. They were not model parents. But it doesn’t mean that nothing inappropriate or criminal occurred.
I’m waiting for an explanation on how a young child can describe and identify an adult’s penis with remarkable detail. Please answer THAT question, and for now, THAT question only.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Only the parties in the room know what happened.[/quote]
Glad you admitted that.
[quote]
In the real world, there isn’t much that amounts to “infallible proof” - just ask all the guys on death row that were freed or later proven innocent. [/quote]
Look, these kids never once even acted like the victims of rape. REAL rape victims are often ashamed, one of the reasons the other case you mentioned involves 40 year old circumstances yet no one called the cops.
[quote]
LOL @ “handled documents”. I handled THE claim - the coverage aspect. That means I reviewed the ENTIRE file, including everything produced in the criminal case. All the testimony. What does this mean you might ask? It means I have what they commonly refer to as an “informed opinion” and you do not. [/quote]
What information do you have that shows these kids were without a doubt raped?
LOL @ “I read files so that makes me right with no proof or facts”.
[quote]
And the considered opinion of those that were “informed”, made a collective decision to pay A LOT of money to settle the case. [/quote]
He’s a celebrity. How much did Kobe Bryant pay in that divorce? How does that compare to the average citizen? You have no point with this just because they paid out.
The general public would likely do what you are doing now and find him guilty if it were not settled. He chose to pay up to avoid that possibility. That doesn’t show guilt.
TAKING THE MONEY AFTER YOUR KID GETS RAPED BY A MAN WHO COULD DO IT AGAIN DOES. [/quote]
Wrong as usual
I didn’t “admit” anything; it’s the nature of such crimes. In fact, eyewitness testimony is proving to be increasingly unreliable. There is very little we know for certain - even thing we believe we witnessed. But that’s not the point, and you’re off on some tangent as usual.
As for how we made our decision? We had all the testimony. We weigh the relative risk of the case and make decisions based on risk. “Without a doubt” raped? Well, first of all, the criminal standard is “reasonable doubt” which does not include “without a doubt” and the civil standard is “preponderance of evidence”. And in case you haven’t been following, I’m talking about the FIRST case against him, not the subsequent cases. The first case against him was pretty strong according to my memory.
The first child in question did not “act like he was raped”? Really. What is your reference for this observation? Please provide it or at least stop reaching up your cavernous ass in search of “arguments”.
How much did Kobe pay in his divorce? Really? And that’s relevant how? You wonder why I “talk down to you”? LOL. Kobe’s divorce settlement was a reflection of divorce law in the State of CA and has nothing to do with a criminal or civil case against MJ. But don’t let that stop ya.
As for “paying out”, we didn’t pay out lightly. It was a huge sum of money. It wasn’t “go away” or “nuisance” money or “cost of defense” money. It was a large sum. Millions. Although he may have funded some of the settlement out of his own money (I can’t recall), we paid millions and we didn’t pay it for them to “go away” for MJ’s benefit - we paid it based on our evaluation of the risk, which was based upon the available evidence. [/quote]
What does any of this have to do with you showing us how you know the kids were all telling the truth? Paragraphs written…for this? How long did it takes those fingers to type all this crap?
Please provide us with the missing knowledge you apparently have that shows these kids were not lying. If you have none, kindly stop acting like your ass holish opinion is any better than anyone else’s here.[/quote]
and in case you’re not paying full attention; i wasn’t talking about “kids” - i only speak of the incident in which i have knowledge - the 1st public case against him circa 93 or so. i have no opinion (informed) about the other “kids”.