From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com   
      
   I just visited MJ's site, you know, the one where he gives statements to his   
   fans.   
      
   It's a 100% crock, based upon what we know of the history.  He even called   
   one of his friends (from a TV News Magazine episode) AFTER being charged,   
   claiming to be all but clueless as to what it was involving.  Now, I don't   
   know how stupid or deranged a person can be, but what's Michael trying to   
   say here?  He knew, then he didn't, and now he does again?   
      
   He's feeding his "adoring fans" a load of drivel.  Anyone who has ever heard   
   Michael Jackson speak, knows full well that the statements he signs for   
   release to the public, are not in his vocabulary, and based upon the facts,   
   are misleading.   
      
   Back in 1993, when he paid off the family of that boy, he had a defense team   
   then.  Apparently they felt it was in his best interest to buy the family   
   off.  Not because it was the act of an innocent party, but because they knew   
   that if it went to trial Michael might lose.  Now, imagine you're an   
   innocent man with a normal public defender, who doesn't know his asshole   
   from the judge's gavel.  Do you think he wouldn't realize that buying the   
   accuser off makes you look guilty?  Damn right he'd figure it out, lickety   
   split!  However, all these high-priced pinstripe pimps somehow didn't?  Now,   
   let's assume the lawyers came up with the tactic, you're innocent, they   
   offer to you the option of paying the family off, showing you the loophole   
   where the kid can't testify if his parents call it off.  Would you not   
   figure out it makes you look guilty to everyone?  Damn right, you'd probably   
   fire your attorneys for the mere suggestion!  He's an innocent, child-like   
   person, afterall, and couldn't bear the thought of being considered guilty.   
   Bullshit!   
      
   Fast-forward to today.  You're Michael Jackson, and you're having a "video   
   shoot" with a child, and everything is 100% innocent.  Would there be any   
   videotape to release to someone of your private staff COACHING the family   
   and child to say on video that nothing unusual or improper went on?  That's   
   the kind of things guilty people do when they're about to get charged with   
   something.  If he didn't do anything wrong, he'd have no reason to have   
   anyone coached on what to say.  It's all innocent, right?   
      
   I like to consider myself a fan of Sherlock Holmes.   
      
   I know, that when a person's statements don't make sense, and often they   
   don't, follow the trail of physical facts, what we know to be 100% accurate.   
   Compare these with those of an innocent man, as well as a guilty one.  Which   
   makes more sense?  Which is more plausible than the other?   
      
   I submit to you, that Michael Jackson is guilty.  Guilty of being a lying,   
   snivelling, whiny little child predator.  If he doesn't die in prison, he'll   
   be out someday to do it again.  I hope he gets convicted, that way atleast   
   potential victims' families might remember what happened, and not trust him   
   alone with their child.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)