Chopper wrote:
As a parent, I find it difficult to understand how a parent could settle out of court for money on this issue.
I understand why you'd feel that way but you have to put yourself in their shoes.
The defense team put the family under immense pressure with 2 options that probably sounded like this:
#1- You pursue the case and chances are you'll lose.
There's no real evidence and it's
your word against Michael Jackson's.
In the process, you'll become vilified the world over as the family who tried to put the king of pop behind bars.
You'll put your son through hell and he'll only come out worse off.
or
#2- You sign these documents that bind you to silence. In return, your children and your children's children
will never have to worry about money as long as they live.
This is
not an easy choice for a poor family to make.
It's not as if taking Michael to court would erase the past.
Chopper wrote:
The author of the article is definitely bias in his belief that MJ is guilty, so it's difficult to rely on his account regarding the issue of MJ's private area and the boy's description. I wonder if there is a more objective/credible source that can relate this evidence.
I recall hearing this from mainstream outlets when it first surfaced. I just referenced the most recent article I could find. Do a search and you'll find thousands of articles saying the same thing. Then prepare to explain yourself when your wife finds "distinct penis markings" in your search history.
I think I had more to say on this but I have to run.
The great Oscar Mayer passed away today and I've arranged a private memorial at the barbecue.
and the other part are just plain stupid 
