Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheBibleSender

Micheal Jackson dies

Recommended Posts



Sir,
Your uncle was not Michael Jackson. He lived a wicked life.

According to his fruits, I have no reason to think he was a believer.
God bless,
Crushmaster.


I'm not sure how you can know he lived a wicked life, as in less than 1% of his life is what we see in the media, and even that, I don't see solid evidnece that he lived overtly wicked.

It is easy to point fingers, especially when you don't know someone. You cannot know someone from a portrayal in the media. The media could probably look at my life, and show one small thing I have done, take it out of context, and make me look pretty wicked, and could probably do the same for us all.

I'm just saying we cannot judge someones salvation or lack thereof, especially when we do not know that person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I'm not sure how you can know he lived a wicked life, as in less than 1% of his life is what we see in the media, and even that, I don't see solid evidnece that he lived overtly wicked.

It is easy to point fingers, especially when you don't know someone. You cannot know someone from a portrayal in the media. The media could probably look at my life, and show one small thing I have done, take it out of context, and make me look pretty wicked, and could probably do the same for us all.

I'm just saying we cannot judge someones salvation or lack thereof, especially when we do not know that person.


But, kind - he did spend a couple million to silence the boy and his family about the boy's time at Neverland...spending that kind of money would indicate guilt. Guilt of a heinous act that is wicked.

Yes, the media could spin anything. Like right now how they are spinning how wonderful MJ was - I've even heard some of them say it doesn't matter WHAT he did, he gave so much to the entertainment industry. Right. Tell that to the kids he damaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, kind - he did spend a couple million to silence the boy and his family about the boy's time at Neverland...spending that kind of money would indicate guilt. Guilt of a heinous act that is wicked.

Yes, the media could spin anything. Like right now how they are spinning how wonderful MJ was - I've even heard some of them say it doesn't matter WHAT he did, he gave so much to the entertainment industry. Right. Tell that to the kids he damaged.


Not necesearily. I'm a lawyer and see people spend an absurd amount of money to settle a case that they are not guilty in. If people can afford it, many times, settling for a large sum is better than being dragged through a very public trial.

He was acquitted on all 14 counts of the crime against children. Crimes against children are terrible, terrible things, and people are quick to convict one guilty of those crimes. People are not tolerant of that behavior.

I think he made a huge mistake settling the first case because it openned him up to further allegations.

Yes, he was foolish in spending time with the children, but I think it was totally innocent. Jackson was very childlike in his behavior. I think he had mental problems stemming from his childhood, and as a result, was like a child as an adult. He was bizzarre, like a child, and very odd, but that does not make him a child molester. If he were, I am convinced he would have been convicted at the trial.

I may go back to study his case, but I recall the accuser's family had sued a store they shoplifted from to try to extort money from the store, and every witness had contradicting stories and were very uncredible, some having admitted to having lied under oath before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Not necesearily. I'm a lawyer and see people spend an absurd amount of money to settle a case that they are not guilty in. If people can afford it, many times, settling for a large sum is better than being dragged through a very public trial.

He was acquitted on all 14 counts of the crime against children. Crimes against children are terrible, terrible things, and people are quick to convict one guilty of those crimes. People are not tolerant of that behavior.

I think he made a huge mistake settling the first case because it openned him up to further allegations.

Yes, he was foolish in spending time with the children, but I think it was totally innocent. Jackson was very childlike in his behavior. I think he had mental problems stemming from his childhood, and as a result, was like a child as an adult. He was bizzarre, like a child, and very odd, but that does not make him a child molester. If he were, I am convinced he would have been convicted at the trial.

I may go back to study his case, but I recall the accuser's family had sued a store they shoplifted from to try to extort money from the store, and every witness had contradicting stories and were very uncredible, some having admitted to having lied under oath before.


Well, I bow to your legal knowledge - but I have to say that I have my doubts about his innocence. What do you think about this site?
http://www.statementanalysis.com/jackson/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Not necesearily. I'm a lawyer and see people spend an absurd amount of money to settle a case that they are not guilty in. If people can afford it, many times, settling for a large sum is better than being dragged through a very public trial.

He was acquitted on all 14 counts of the crime against children. Crimes against children are terrible, terrible things, and people are quick to convict one guilty of those crimes. People are not tolerant of that behavior.

I think he made a huge mistake settling the first case because it openned him up to further allegations.

Yes, he was foolish in spending time with the children, but I think it was totally innocent. Jackson was very childlike in his behavior. I think he had mental problems stemming from his childhood, and as a result, was like a child as an adult. He was bizzarre, like a child, and very odd, but that does not make him a child molester. If he were, I am convinced he would have been convicted at the trial.

I may go back to study his case, but I recall the accuser's family had sued a store they shoplifted from to try to extort money from the store, and every witness had contradicting stories and were very uncredible, some having admitted to having lied under oath before.


Kind: I completely agree (I'm a fellow member of the bar myself). Sometimes its cheaper to settle a case than to defend it. I do remember the Jackson case and the child's mother's credibility was attacked due to the previous extortion attempt you mentioned. They were after money, plain and simple. Twelve people who heard all the facts, saw all the evidence and heard each witness unanimously found him not guilty. The State chose not to appeal. Who are we to question them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, pt, we can question them...they are not perfect, and mistakes can be made.

As a lawyer, would you read the site I posted to kind and let me know what you think? I'd really like to hear from both of you about it, since you've both been trained in the legal system. Thanks. (and maybe read the Dateline link at the end...about the second boy who many claimed was bought off)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, pt, we can question them...they are not perfect, and mistakes can be made.

As a lawyer, would you read the site I posted to kind and let me know what you think? I'd really like to hear from both of you about it, since you've both been trained in the legal system. Thanks. (and maybe read the Dateline link at the end...about the second boy who many claimed was bought off)


I'll take some time when I have it to go through and let you know what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




Very true....I believe they got it right in this case, wrong in the case of OJ.


I agree with you in regards to OJ. My brother lived near there then, and he said that everyone around there knew he was guilty. Am not too sure about MJ, though. I would love to be completely wrong, but...let me know what you think after reading the page and the accompanying article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mom of that boy wanted Money and was overly Jealous of Michael that is why she lied and had her son lie about Michael touching him. he had three children right now have they complained of him touching them improper?
Also Cnn on thier website in about an hour will have a briefing of somewhat of his health. There is talks that he might've needed a lung transplant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mom of that boy wanted Money and was overly Jealous of Michael that is why she lied and had her son lie about Michael touching him. he had three children right now have they complained of him touching them improper?
Also Cnn on thier website in about an hour will have a briefing of somewhat of his health. There is talks that he might've needed a lung transplant.


It's quite possible and probable that the mom was after money. So, perhaps the dad in the earlier case (1993). And all the other families...

I hadn't heard about the lung thing. From what I've heard they are thinking it might be a reaction to the Demoral he was given just before he died. I suppose we'll know soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a shred of evidence he was saved and an abundance of evidence to suggest he wasn't.

Folks should look at this and realize the fact they can die at any time and really consider the state of their soul and their eternal destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, pt, we can question them...they are not perfect, and mistakes can be made.

As a lawyer, would you read the site I posted to kind and let me know what you think? I'd really like to hear from both of you about it, since you've both been trained in the legal system. Thanks. (and maybe read the Dateline link at the end...about the second boy who many claimed was bought off)


Happy: I read the articles you posted. The article by McClish is absurd. I don't think he would ever be used as an expert in a criminal case to prove the defendant was lieing, and in fact, I researched it and he has never been qualified as an expert in any proceeding in the U.S. As far as his educational pedigree, he's a former U.S. Marshall. He does not hold a medical degree or any form of Ph. D. He is basically saying that we know Michael Jackson is a child molester because Michael Jackson has never specifically said "I am not a child molester" on television or in a printed interview. It's really silly. It also assumes, for no reason other than its convenience, that Mr. Jackson has never said those exact words in a non-public forum.

The Dateline article is interesting, but only really suggests that there are more that have extorted Mr. Jackson than we originally thought. I would also question how much money the house keeper was paid for her interviews, and to whom the interviews were originally given. To compound it all, even she doesn't present any proof of anything. Just more suspicion, this time from someone unrelated to the victim that had a close relationship with him.

In the end we are left with two people that made serious allegations, both of whom were paid millions to settle/prevent any lawsuits and a twelve person jury who actually saw the evidence (as opposed to you and I, who can only merely speculate) and unanimously found him not guilty. If it I were in his shoes, I'd ask what else I have to do to prove my innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input on those articles, pt. I don't see giving out millions of dollars as declaration of innocence - even if a jury voted not guilty. MJ was a superstar, as was OJ, and whether we like it or not, people can be influenced by that.

I'm not saying that he did molest those boys. But there is still so much doubt...

(FWIW - I did't know the guy's credentials, but I have to say his conclusions kinda made me scratch my head and go "huh?")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input on those articles, pt. I don't see giving out millions of dollars as declaration of innocence - even if a jury voted not guilty. MJ was a superstar, as was OJ, and whether we like it or not, people can be influenced by that.

I'm not saying that he did molest those boys. But there is still so much doubt...

(FWIW - I did't know the guy's credentials, but I have to say his conclusions kinda made me scratch my head and go "huh?")


That thing you call "doubt" is a personal conviction that he is not guilty. That's why our legal standard in criminal cases is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

You give out millions of dollars to settle cases because it is cheaper than defending them. Would you rather pay $25 million and not have to deal with the whole thing, or go through a year long televised trial that costs you $40 million in legal fees. It makes economic sense and prevents the other party from lieing about you anymore (assuming you are innocent of course). And those are civil suits, not criminal. The issue is not guilt or innocence, but liability. You can't buy your way out of prosecution.

As to Mr. McClish, I might be able to give him more credit if he was a psychiatrist, maybe even a psychologists. Plus, the article is so poorly written. That's what prompted me to research his academic background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



That thing you call "doubt" is a personal conviction that he is not guilty. That's why our legal standard in criminal cases is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

You give out millions of dollars to settle cases because it is cheaper than defending them. Would you rather pay $25 million and not have to deal with the whole thing, or go through a year long televised trial that costs you $40 million in legal fees. It makes economic sense and prevents the other party from lieing about you anymore (assuming you are innocent of course). And those are civil suits, not criminal. The issue is not guilt or innocence, but liability. You can't buy your way out of prosecution.

As to Mr. McClish, I might be able to give him more credit if he was a psychiatrist, maybe even a psychologists. Plus, the article is so poorly written. That's what prompted me to research his academic background.

Oh - I know it's a personal doubt...If I'm not guilty of something, I'm not going to pay off the accusers. That just isn't me. Of course, I'm not a celebrity, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input on those articles, pt. I don't see giving out millions of dollars as declaration of innocence - even if a jury voted not guilty. MJ was a superstar, as was OJ, and whether we like it or not, people can be influenced by that.

I'm not saying that he did molest those boys. But there is still so much doubt...

(FWIW - I did't know the guy's credentials, but I have to say his conclusions kinda made me scratch my head and go "huh?")


I just read the link. I must say, his conclusions are very far fetched. He is not doing anything but picking apart and over analyzing peoples sentences. There is no comment into the psychology involved, the evidnece or lack thereof, and there is no comment on the testimony of the accusers. So, I don't give this a lot of credibility.

One or two people making baseless accusations can ruin someone's life. That is why it is important for a pastor to NEVER meet behind closed doors with a woman, and now a child. Someone ALWAYS should be there so no allegations can be made.

Jackson was very foolish to have sleepovers with 12 year old boys. However, given his child like behavior, and his mental problems to cause it, I do not believe the accusations were true. The accusers were not credible, and the evidence was contradictory, and ALL of the jurors agreed.

As to paying off the first accuser, he did so thinking he would get rid of a problem, and instead created a new one by brining forth a second accuser. I have seen large settlments for baseless claims because the media coverage and a public trial would hurt even more, even if innocent or not at fault. That is a calculated risk. It is interesting that after he paid the first family off, they refused to cooperate in a criminal investigation after that, which in my mind shows they were out for the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Not necesearily. I'm a lawyer and see people spend an absurd amount of money to settle a case that they are not guilty in. If people can afford it, many times, settling for a large sum is better than being dragged through a very public trial.

He was acquitted on all 14 counts of the crime against children. Crimes against children are terrible, terrible things, and people are quick to convict one guilty of those crimes. People are not tolerant of that behavior.

I think he made a huge mistake settling the first case because it openned him up to further allegations.

Yes, he was foolish in spending time with the children, but I think it was totally innocent. Jackson was very childlike in his behavior. I think he had mental problems stemming from his childhood, and as a result, was like a child as an adult. He was bizzarre, like a child, and very odd, but that does not make him a child molester. If he were, I am convinced he would have been convicted at the trial.

I may go back to study his case, but I recall the accuser's family had sued a store they shoplifted from to try to extort money from the store, and every witness had contradicting stories and were very uncredible, some having admitted to having lied under oath before.


Kind - It's your choice to defend him. If possible would you take his case before God? With what evidence and testimony you're giving could you defend him before God? Do you think the prosecution would present any witnesses you would prefer were not there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well' date=' pt, we can question them...they are not perfect, and mistakes can be made. [/quote']

Hi, Happy Christian. So which is it? Do you think a jury can be mistaken in their judgement or do you think the system is trustworthy enough to be relied upon to clear your name in the event untrue allegations are brought against you? If someone decided to settle out of court because the court is "...not perfect, and mistakes can be made," would you then argue that they should put their faith in the court system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing for sure, the Judge, Jesus Christ, who will Judge every human, the saved at the Bema Judgment, the lost at the great white throne, will judge everyone with perfect righteous judgments.

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
John 5:29 (KJV)

There will be no dream team of lawyers standing with those who stand before Christ at the great white throne.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev 20:11-15 (KJV)

Those standing before the great white throne will have no hope, for they will be cast into the lake of fried which is the 2nd death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some don't like to face, or even admit, the fact that most folks are going to hell.

God is very clear there is One narrow Way to heaven and few are willing to accept this. God is equally clear that most will choose the broad way which leads to hell and there is no second chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 33 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...