The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I don't know the full details, so I won't make any brash comments.
But what are your thoughts on this?
Is it just another person making false claims to get their name in the media?
Or is there something really behind this? Will he ever learn?
> He'd probably have to take a recently dead guy's face.
Strange... I thought he already had one! ;-p
Anyway, that surgeon recently claimed he can do a face transplant a la Travolta/Cage in 'Face/Off' - so this time next week they probably won't be able to find Jacko anyway! :-)
> I'm inclined to believe it, to be honest.
>
> It's not the first time such accusations have been levelled at him.
> and - allegedly - this time those making the allegations claim that
> they're NOT after any money.
>
> First time around I was doubtful, but two accusations about the same
> thing? No smoke without fire, and all that.
Crazy logic.
> English_Bloke wrote:
> Just look at all this Phil Huntley stuff, guilty before anything has
> been proved?
>
> I assume you mean IAN Huntley?
Um, I didn't want to mention his name, I thought it not riiight...oh fiddle-sticks.
*Points to time post was made*
That's my excuse and I'm stick to it dag-nabbit!
assuming he did it .... which I think he did.
"Yes those children died in my house, but I was watching telly at the time ......"
> Just look at all this Phil Huntley stuff, guilty before anything has
> been proved?
I assume you mean IAN Huntley?
Sure, he may be considered guilty before anything has been proven.
But he's admitted cutting the clothes from the bodies, and that he "disposed of" the bodies.
And now (from Sky News):
"Ian Huntley's defence has admitted in court he was the only person present when Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman died in his house."
Yet he says he didn't kill them?
Good luck getting a "not guilty" verdict out of that one!
> I personally think that whether MJ is innocent or not,his negative
> reputation is not doing him any favours.
>
> In my opinion, his denial of the sexual accusations isnt necessarily
> a reason to believe him. As many of you have pointed out, he has a
> totally different outlook on the world and he may be thinking in
> different terms to the rest of us. So if we say, for the sake of the
> argument, that he did molest the 12-year old, MJ may not see anything
> wrong with it personally. He may see it as expressing his
> "love" for the child and shwoing how much he cares about
> kids. What is considered abnormal and wrong to us, may not seem odd
> to him at all. Which is why it is important to assess his mental
> condition, because it is vital to find out what really is going on at
> Neverland.
But all peadophiles think in this way, just because Jackson is in the public eye, he should not be treated any differently.