That someone is Robert Blake:
Posted on 06/14/2005 9:36:31 AM PDT by Random Nonsense
Someone is missing from below pic: That someone is Robert Blake:
Here's just a few QUESTIONS for the Jacko defenders about his selection criteria for "sleepovers":
Why no girls?
Why only boys in a narrow age range?
Why no groups of boys but only one at a time?
Why no black boys?
Why did he appear naked before the selected boys?
Why did he allow booze and porno to be available for these boys?
WHY? WHY? WHY?......
CLUES:
It was not because of a humanitarian love for needy children.
It was not because of the innocent love of an adult lost soul who thought he was a child.
It was not because of any similarly "charming" feelings of compassion or charity.
ANSWER:
IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL SEXUAL ATTRACTION OF A DEPRAVED FORTY YEAR OLD ADULT MAN FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF YOUNG BOYS.
I'm talking of my picture (without Blake) in your original posting. "eyespysomething" did ping me when he posted my second version with Blake. No offense - just a matter of established FR courtesy.
He may have been found not guilty, but he's not innocent.
You need to mark your photoshop work if you're going to be an anal freak about it.
What I do know is that the accusers family has tried to extort many people, many times. So, none of their claims, let alone their testimony, are credible, IMO.
What I do know is that at the very least, MJ is a big frickin weirdo. Any any parent who would let their kid anywhere near him is, in the end, out for money.
Was there any testimony against Jackson in this case from anyone who did not stand to gain monetarily? There were plenty of people who testified that things were not as the accusers family described. Why does their version hold no water in your opinion?
The jury is duty bound to not consider anything that has happened, been reported, or been alleged in the past. Only this case, and the evidence presented, are to be taken into account.
You do mind, that's why you're being an ass about it.
Again, mark your work so you don't have to anally police the site/web for violations. Otherwise just shut up and let people have some fair use fun like you did with someone else's work.
It's not just this accusation. How about the other cases that were paid off. He's a little boy raper.
In this particular case, he was not guilty. You & I both know he's not innocent. It will happen again, too.
poor Nancy Grace, she was majorly bummed........
when the jury said celebrity didn't matter, please did you see that tit with the curly hair who kept smiling and nodding her head, acting like this trial was some kind of great high school trip without anyone going missing........
Grace said it was clear a number of the jurors were waving over to the Jackson family and staring at them etc. like they were star struck.......
and what one of the smart legal eagles said of course celebrity matters when the celebrities like Jackson and OJ use the defence that people are all lying about them or out to get them or trying to set them up BECAUSE THEY ARE CELEBRITIES........
having said that the one thing the jury said which actually got me thinking is the timeline
given all the time MJ spend with the accuser before the Bashir documentary (where they are holding hands, puke)
and given MJ was under intense scrutiny after the Bashir documentary including California Social Services investigating him, the baby incident
why would MJ START molesting the kid after all this and why do you go to the same lawyer as Accuser #1 and why do you wait another 4 weeks to file a charge
if this was a scam Momma was not too bright, she should have said MJ molested the kid all along and lastly the prosecution should have dumped the whole kidnapping thing, stupid
you don't get a bikini wax and return to a house if you are being held hostage, hostage to the money and glamour
I do wonder about that kid
if the Mom made him lie, he has to be so screwed up
if he was truly molested, he has to be so screwed up
the kid is screwed, any which way you look at it........
"You do mind..."
I say I don't mind the posting. If you actually read ALL my words in post #27, 22 & 16 you might understand what I thought was an issue of Freeper courtesy - and it wasn't the posting.
And since this issue was between me & "Random Nonsense" who in hell deputized you to police this thread with your two-cents?
By the way the fun I've been having has been with MY OWN work.
yes it appears to be a California phenomenon,
but then again let's be frank, there are more people who are inclined to try and scam celebrities that live in California
Sandy Berger
Your version is lame
If you are looking for men who were not convicted in California it would be Jackson, Blake, and Simpson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.