Export thread

The fuck?!? CNN is reporting that Tito's son is being given custody (temporary) of Michael's kids because their mom is being held against her will and because she may be "prevented from acting as a guardian because of the acts of third parties."

Let me say again: The fuck?!?[DOUBLEPOST=1343242442][/DOUBLEPOST]http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/25/showbiz/jackson-family-dispute/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

That's what I'M saying! WTF, man?

Why not turn the kids over to their birth parents? And screw the rest of the Jacksons they were all pedophile enablers anyway.

Christ, those kids will never have a chance at a normal or stable life so long as that family is around.

ThatNickGuy said:

Christ, those kids will never have a chance at a normal or stable life so long as that family is around.

Click to expand...

If they couldn't have one, no one can.

Allen who is Quiet said:

If they couldn't have one, no one can.

Click to expand...

Crazy People manipulating you (not in a good way) pretty much nullifies the money. Or worse yet, being raised by these people who then steals all your money.

I don't get it either. The article says

a Los Angeles County sheriff's investigation concluded she was safe in Arizona.

Click to expand...

If the sheriff's investigation concluded she was safe, how can the family say she's being held against her will? If that were the case, wouldn't the sheriffs have noticed anything unusual? As with many things involving the Jackson family, this is weird.

sixpackshaker said:

And screw the rest of the Jacksons they were all pedophile enablers anyway.

Click to expand...

alleged

Charlie Don't Surf said:

alleged

Click to expand...

The fuck? Is anyone else finding this pretty backwards?

Vrii said:

The fuck? Is anyone else finding this pretty backwards?

Click to expand...

That is why I threw it out there. He had no problem wishing death on a man that had less of a connection to protecting a child rapist than the Jacksons.

In Charlie's defense, Jackson was found not guilty while Sandusky was found guilty. I do think Charlie is trolling though,

In a related topic, I really like this cover

blotsfan said:

In Charlie's defense, Jackson was found not guilty while Sandusky was found guilty. I do think Charlie is trolling though,

Click to expand...

Yeah, I gotta side with CDS on this one, a bit. There's actual evidence of guilt and a conviction on side, and nothing but supposition and a "not guilty" verdict on the other.

And I love Richard Cheese's RATM covers!

blotsfan said:

In Charlie's defense, Jackson was found not guilty while Sandusky was found guilty. I do think Charlie is trolling though,

Click to expand...

So it is Sandusky's fault for not having the best lawyers in America.

Innocent until proven guilty. And MJ was not proven guilty, like it or not.

SpecialKO said:

Innocent until proven guilty. And MJ was not proven guilty, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Start at page one on Joe Pa.

I've always been of the belief that he was innocent, anyway, and that the first accusation was just the parents coming after him for money (shock of shocks, I know). Unfortunately, innocent or not, that one accusation damned him.

Was he entirely right in the head? No, absolutely not. His abusive father and abusive family pretty much scarred him. He never had a "normal" childhood and was never allowed to be a kid because he was too busy being whored out to make money. Which then explains Neverland and wanting to hang out with kids because he tried to have his childhood in his adult life.

If it was ever discovered somehow that he was, unquestionably, molesting those kids, I wouldn't be too surprised. But I'm still willing to belief he was innocent.

Methinks Katherine's kids are making a play for the estate's money. Hell, one of them said they had a plan in place for years to get Katherine out of that house.

I'm not going to get into the "is he guilty" crap since there's not a really easy way to know. The "court of public opinion" is kind of bullshit.

As for JoePa, many lawyers have said on record that he'd probably go to jail if he were still alive based on the Freeh Report alone, much less any official, now hypothetical, investigation by the actual police

sixpackshaker said:

Start at page one on Joe Pa.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I try to avoid reading too many Charlie-based rants (and all the counter-rants that come with it) in a single day.

And just because you guys disagree about Joe Pa (or whever that thread ended up) doesn't change the fact that Sandusky was found guilty of an act that the available evidence is suggesting got covered up by people at PSU and that MJ was not.

What does that have to do with wishing Joe Pa dead before the trial started?

And again, it is just Sandusky's fault for not being one of the richest men in America.

sixpackshaker said:

What does that have to do with wishing Joe Pa dead before the trial started?

Click to expand...

Nothing at all, except possibly pointing out that Charlie is a bit inconsistent (which I doubt we disagree on).

And again, it is just Sandusky's fault for not being one of the richest men in America.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Unless you were the kid in question in the MJ case, all we know for certain is that MJ was found not guilty and Sandusky was. So Charlie is right when he says "alleged" and it absolutely is a differentiator when comparing the two.

I don't think I wished he was dead. I wish he would have lived to see his legacy come crashing down literally and figuratively. To use a terrible nerd metaphor, he died a hero before he could live long enough to become the villain (in his eyes)

Just because you WERE right doesn't mean what you said WAS right.

Can we still call OJ a murderer?

Ravenpoe said:

Can we still call OJ a murderer?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't have a firm opinion on that. I was a little young to be able to follow the trial at all or facts or whatever, and I'm leery of the court of public opinion (that's pretty sure he did it)

Ravenpoe said:

Can we still call OJ a murderer?

Click to expand...

I'm going to go with "Hell, yes" on that one. That was the biggest sham trial ever. =/

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I honestly don't have a firm opinion on that. I was a little young to be able to follow the trial at all or facts or whatever, and I'm leery of the court of public opinion (that's pretty sure he did it)

Click to expand...

The evidence against him was overwhelming. However, because this was just following the Rodney King verdict and the LA riots, people were more affraid of the backlash than dispensing justice.

Bowielee said:

The evidence against him was overwhelming. However, because this was just following the Rodney King verdict and the LA riots, people were more affraid of the backlash than dispensing justice.

Click to expand...

It didn't help that they guys who did the investigation mishandled the evidence and possibly forged some of it. I'd have acquitted him on those facts alone.

the lesson, as always, "fuck the police"

Charlie Don't Surf said:

the lesson, as always, "fuck the police"

Click to expand...

I like your way of thinking.

*buys some flowers, uses some breath spray, and waits patiently outside the home of @Officer_Charon*

AshburnerX said:

It didn't help that they guys who did the investigation mishandled the evidence and possibly forged some of it. I'd have acquitted him on those facts alone.

Click to expand...

Jackson also never tried to sell a book called "If I had molested those kids.."