Would you whore your 13 year old son to this
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
greenfreak
New Member
freako104 said:
What about his past? How do you know who the victim really is?
greenfreak
New Member
Les, my original argument was because I didn't see any reason for Condit not to cooperate fully with authorities and answer questions to aid in the search. Her body hadn't been found yet.
freako104
Well-Known Member
greenfreak said:
victim=one who was molested. i dont know any of the accusers personally no. but i tend to side wiht them. i had been molested myself so i usualy will take the side of the victim. but there have been times that i sided wiht the accused. he has been accused of this in the past(he had been accused of molesting in the past).
greenfreak
New Member
Leslie, it was found. It just wasn't found at the time I posted the news story.
freako, my point is that you don't know who the victim is, you're just assuming they're telling the truth. As I'm sure Gato would attest to, there are plenty of people out there who have wrongly accused people for their own purposes. You just can't be sure. I understand your history though and why you would sympathize with the person who is claiming to have been molested.
freako, my point is that you don't know who the victim is, you're just assuming they're telling the truth. As I'm sure Gato would attest to, there are plenty of people out there who have wrongly accused people for their own purposes. You just can't be sure. I understand your history though and why you would sympathize with the person who is claiming to have been molested.
freako104
Well-Known Member
greenfreak said:
i didnt say that there are those who arent wrongly accused. jsut that i tend to side more with the victm. hell ive had friends who were accused. but in truth i dont know the other side but i sided with my friends in that case if i had a reason to. otherwise im not friends with them.
chcr
Too cute for words
greenfreak said:
I don't know how you read this at the time, greenie, but I read it to say that he bought them off. Give the parents a ton of money and the morally bankrupt jerks tell the kid not to testify. I thought he did it then, I think he did it this time. I think he's done it lots of times. I fear he'll get away with it yet again.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
me ;) said:
This is the second time he's been accused. The first time, as has been stated, he paid off the parents, all the while claiming he was innocent. This is the second time he's been accused. The first time was sensationalized so much, people should have learned that if you leave your children, you'd better watch him. If only to prove to yourself whether he was guilty or innocent. This didn't happen. Those parents are irresponsible at best if this pans out. Looks like plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
don't be ashamed, it'll all be ok 
IDLEchild
Well-Known Member
Leslie said:
Yes it was.
I would rather wait to see the final outcome before passing judgement or investigate the whole fiasco more seriously before insulting him. He isn't guilty so far but after reading the newspaper today things look bleakfor him. This only adds to his declining wealth and his ravished and declining carrer along with his financial woes already plaguing him.
Had the man grown up in reality instead of a uber luxorious rock star life during his pertienent developing years he may have had more sensibility enstilled in him. He was and is always surrounded by "yes" men.
greenfreak
New Member
Gonz, that's it? 
That figures.
Everyone always thinks it's a buyout when something is settled out of court. Fact is, with the amount of money he has (had?), it's not that large of a gesture for him. And the parents of the kid got what they wanted. There could be a lot of reasons that was settled for both parties. MJ didn't want the bad press, conviction. Parents didn't want to put the child on the stand and cause more grief. Parents wanted money. MJ wanted peace. Who knows?
Honestly, I don't know what I think. We're always more apt to believe something bad than something good. I hope if they're going to go through this again and had enough for a warrant, that they'll be some proof this time instead of one person's word against another's. The fact that the kid's psychiatrist was the one who brought this out looks better than if the parents were doing the talking. But none of this proves his guilt.
That figures.Everyone always thinks it's a buyout when something is settled out of court. Fact is, with the amount of money he has (had?), it's not that large of a gesture for him. And the parents of the kid got what they wanted. There could be a lot of reasons that was settled for both parties. MJ didn't want the bad press, conviction. Parents didn't want to put the child on the stand and cause more grief. Parents wanted money. MJ wanted peace. Who knows?
Honestly, I don't know what I think. We're always more apt to believe something bad than something good. I hope if they're going to go through this again and had enough for a warrant, that they'll be some proof this time instead of one person's word against another's. The fact that the kid's psychiatrist was the one who brought this out looks better than if the parents were doing the talking. But none of this proves his guilt.
BeardofPants
New Member
I'm not going to jump to conclusions. There's simply not enough evidence to condemn him just yet.
I was just reading the AP report and found this......rediculous...
