New Michael Jackson allegations

[downzy]

after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshit

Not true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first.

Edited May 16, 2014 by downzy

[nickzark]

after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshit

Not true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first.

Yes but still FBI early 90's was searching the case .Find nothing and there was no criminal case againts him.If they had find something againts him he wouldnt be save

[Jackie Moon]

if it was airtight why not 10 years ago?

fuckery is afoot. I would guess it's easier to sneek something like this through now that he's dead?

Not 100% convinced its not true just sayinzal.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Jackie Moon

[Christinith]

Michael Jackson was a child molester. I don't blame this person for trying to cash in on it. He can't put the fucker in jail.

[downzy]

after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshit

Not true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first.

Yes but still FBI early 90's was searching the case .Find nothing and there was no criminal case againts him.If they had find something againts him he wouldnt be save

Evidence was found, but just not enough to ensure a conviction. The lead detective on the case has been outspoken on the matter, specifically how the first accuser was able to accurately describe Jackson's genitalia.

[Gia]

Michael Jackson was a child molester. I don't blame this person for trying to cash in on it. He can't put the fucker in jail.

Pretty refreshing to hear someone be so blunt about Michael Jackson here

after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshit

Not true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first.

Yes but still FBI early 90's was searching the case .Find nothing and there was no criminal case againts him.If they had find something againts him he wouldnt be save

Evidence was found, but just not enough to ensure a conviction. The lead detective on the case has been outspoken on the matter, specifically how the first accuser was able to accurately describe Jackson's genitalia.

So you think he's guilty Downzy?

[pestilence]

larry king (cnn) overheard prosecuting lawyers at a restauraunt

talking about charges being bullshit and the judge wouldn't let him

testify claiming it was hearsay

[Guest NGOG]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

[mrandyk]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

I just can't shake the feeling that there was something morbidly grotesque about his genitalia.

[downzy]

Michael Jackson was a child molester. I don't blame this person for trying to cash in on it. He can't put the fucker in jail.

Pretty refreshing to hear someone be so blunt about Michael Jackson here

after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshit

Not true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first.

Yes but still FBI early 90's was searching the case .Find nothing and there was no criminal case againts him.If they had find something againts him he wouldnt be save

Evidence was found, but just not enough to ensure a conviction. The lead detective on the case has been outspoken on the matter, specifically how the first accuser was able to accurately describe Jackson's genitalia.

So you think he's guilty Downzy?

No clue. I suppose Jackson deserves the right to be considered innocent since he was never formally convicted.

All I know is that any grown man who openly admits to sleeping in the same bed with children who are not his own and has multiple accusers opens themselves to being considered as such. The fact that the first accuser could accurate describe blemishes and markings on Jacksons genitalia and groin region also causes suspicion.

But again, the truth will likely never be discerned.

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

"It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ball bag." Have you seen enough examples of male genitalia to substantiate this claim?

I remember reading the entire account in a magazine several years back but don't recall which publication ran the piece. Wikipedia seems to have a summary of some of the findings:

"According to child sexual abuse consultant Bill Dworin who was one of the lead detectives from the LAPD to the allegations, Jordan Chandler's description cooperated with the photos taken of Michael Jackson's genitalia.[45] Dr. Richard Strick who conducted the examination of Jackson's genitals claimed, "I was told later that the photos and description absolutely matched"[46] According to Sneddon in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson, "The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant's penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant's erect penis" and "Chandler's graphic representation of the discolored area on Defendant's penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs."[47] Sneddon ended his declaration with "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, as to those statements, I believe them to be true."[47][47] Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s photographer, claims he observed a dark spot on the lower side of Jackson’s penis."

Edited May 17, 2014 by downzy

[AxlisOld]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

o Hai Dave Chappelle.

Write your own material.

Edited May 17, 2014 by AxlisOld

[Guest NGOG]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

o Hai Dave Chappelle.

Write your own material.

Never watched a second of Dave Chappelle in my life, you miserable hooray for tolerance!.

[Guest Len B'stard]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

o Hai Dave Chappelle.

Write your own material.

Never watched a second of Dave Chappelle in my life, you miserable hooray for tolerance!.

You should check his stand up out man, he's funny

Edited May 17, 2014 by sugaraylen

[Jackie Moon]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

I just can't shake the feeling that there was something morbidly grotesque about his genitalia.

lobster claw /Buster Bluth

[Guest Len B'stard]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.

If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.

'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

I think the insinuation was that there was something distinctive about his goolies. Like they were still black or something

[pestilence]

How far wrong can you go when describing male genitalia? It's not like there is any great degree of variation to a cock and ballbag.If sex abuse cases were based on describing male genetalia, the whole legal system would quickly become a farce.'Yes your honour, he had this horrible, wrinkly sack which appeared to contain two round balls.'

I think the insinuation was that there was something distinctive about his goolies. Like they were still black or something

or had plastic surgery

[bacardimayne]

Things I've gathered from this thread:

MJ is innocent

MJ is guilty

NGOG has observed so many cocks and balls in his time that they've all started to blend together

Edited May 19, 2014 by bacardimayne

[Guest NGOG]

Things I've gathered from this thread:

MJ is innocent

MJ is guilty

NGOG has observed so many cocks and balls in his time that they've all started to blend together

Huehuehue.

[Dazey]

[fred_carston]

you are only allowed to call Jimmy Savile a child molester after death nobody else

[Guest Len B'stard]

Fuck me, look at the hair up the top of the pic, what fuckin' part of his body is that?!?! Thats grotesque!

[Guest Len B'stard]

Towelies posting, you're all about to get fuckin' dealt with, go on son!

[Towelie]

Funny how all these accusers feel that money is the only way to heal the pain of their alleged abuse. It's also funny how no-one (not even Jordy Chandler) was prepared to say they were molested during his criminal trial in 2005... and yet now his estate is raking in millions and MJ's no longer here to defend himself all of a sudden they recall that they were infact molested afterall. Not like Savil, where the victims went to the police but were ignored.... nobody was prepared to accuse MJ in a criminal trial, only in civil lawsuits for money.

Actions speak louder than words and all that.

[Towelie]

after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshit

Not true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first.

That is not true. The civil charges were dropped due to the settlement, but the criminal investigation in 1993 was dropped because the boy was unwilling to cooperate with authorities. If there had been sufficient evidence pointing towards MJ's guilt then they could still have taken MJ to trial in 1993 regardless of the civil settlement.

As it stood they had no evidence and an alleged victim unwilling to take the stand. Basically the Chandlers took the money and ran. And fifteen years later, as an adult in his mid-twenties, Jordy Chandler STILL refused to take the stand during MJ's 2005 trial. Speaks volumes if you ask me.

Also, if Jordy's description of MJ's penis was that accurate, then that would've been enough evidence to secure an arrest at the very least. There's a reason Sneddon and the prosecution didn't want these photos to be seen during his 2005 trial.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Towelie

[Dazey]

Funny how all these accusers feel that money is the only way to heal the pain of their alleged abuse.

Not true at all! I've heard Savlon and talcum powder work wonders.