Michael Jackson Kissed Alleged Victim in Front of His Dad

[Ayria 463]

32 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Nice excuse to try to divert the discussion as usual when you can't defeat the claim. You remind me of Kellyanne Conway. You use the same evasive tactics.

 

Umm no you misinterpreted the entire thread sweetie. JS Jr.  had a reason to lie, and I’ve never heard him say he was interviewed by the FBI.

[Mirages 20,259]

3 hours ago, derpmonster said:

Do you understand evidence standards for court? For civil cases, you need a "preponderance of evidence" which we have. Problem is, this is a criminal case. The standard is stronger. It's "beyond reasonable doubt" which of course we don't have. There IS circumstantial evidence but it's not enough for a conviction as is the case in most sexual abuse cases.

An evidence that would not stand at court that's alls im saying 

[Mirages 20,259]

2 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Serious question: What evidence do you think is actually used against pedophiles in a court of law? 

There are medical methods that can be used to prove the child has been molested that will even give you DNA of the pedo but that must be done very early on after the abuse so nothing they can do about it now unfortunately. 

[Ayria 463]

Just now, Mirages said:

There are medical methods that can be used to prove the child has been molested that will even give you DNA of the pedo but that must be done very early on after the abuse so nothing they can do about it now unfortunately. 

What medical methods can be done on just touching though? And do you think every trial against a pedo needs this standard of proof? If that was the case we’d convict very few pedophiles. 

[Enzo 37,977]

BuT tHErE iS nO EviDeNcE

[Mirages 20,259]

1 minute ago, Ayria said:

What medical methods can be done on just touching though? And do you think every trial against a pedo needs this standard of proof? If that was the case we’d convict very few pedophiles. 

Honey I ain't gonna argue with you clearly you have your own idea I have mine. The thing is if you ask any lawyer they will tell you they would not have won the trial. Of course if they just touch you you can't get anything from it, but both of the guys testified they had oral sex with him and with that you can.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

13 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Umm no you misinterpreted the entire thread sweetie. JS Jr.  had a reason to lie, and I’ve never heard him say he was interviewed by the FBI.

LMAO, do you even read your own threads? HAHAHAH

Here's where it says that his son, James Safechuck was interviewed by detectives:

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

And here's another excerpt where it's indicated that detectives took Safechuck (the son) to another room to interview him alone

GIIRL can't wait for you to try to Conway me again...

[Ayria 463]

8 minutes ago, Enzo said:

BuT tHErE iS nO EviDeNcE

[Ayria 463]

5 hours ago, Thotiana said:

He was never found guilty. Therefore, they’re not his victims.

So R. Kelly has no victims?

[Pacify Him 9,073]

[River 90,487]

33 minutes ago, Ayria said:

So R. Kelly has no victims?

R. Kelly was found not guilty because the parents of the girl in the video decided to claim that it’s not their girl in the video, so all the case was thrown to garbage.. 

it’s totally different so please don’t mix the two cases together.

[GABEL 1,852]

4 hours ago, derpmonster said:

Do you understand evidence standards for court? For civil cases, you need a "preponderance of evidence" which we have. Problem is, this is a criminal case. The standard is stronger. It's "beyond reasonable doubt" which of course we don't have. There IS circumstantial evidence but it's not enough for a conviction as is the case in most sexual abuse cases.

"Mentally ill" as a justification for kissing children on the lips?

It's not a justification, I'm just saying his sick and it's true, I didn't say he's innocent 

[Ayria 463]

1 hour ago, River said:

R. Kelly was found not guilty because the parents of the girl in the video decided to claim that it’s not their girl in the video, so all the case was thrown to garbage.. 

it’s totally different so please don’t mix the two cases together.

Girl im just making the point that the criminal justice system IS NOT the end all be all. Everyone is entitled to believe the 2005 trial’s verdict, but don’t say that we can’t come to our own conclusions because of it. 

[River 90,487]

2 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Girl im just making the point that the criminal justice system IS NOT the end all be all. Everyone is entitled to believe the 2005 trial’s verdict, but don’t say that we can’t come to our own conclusions because of it. 

it's totally different, R. Kelly was supposed to be guilty, no one could deny it, but it's the victim's parents who stepped back and caused him to go free.. the judges had no choice, the parents of the victim caused the evidence to be garbage because the girl in the video "doesn't exist" in the world, the justice system worked as it should be even if it threw itself under the bus, at the end there was no victim anymore to defend..

There's no conspiracy here..