The Great Debate - Poll of Polls

Do I believe It Is Michael On The Three Tracks In Question.

  • Yes

    Votes: 152 39.6%
  • No

    Votes: 135 35.2%
  • I Can Not Decide

    Votes: 24 6.3%
  • Maybe in Parts

    Votes: 73 19.0%

  • Total voters
    384
Status
Not open for further replies.

samhabib

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,652
Points
0
Will you stop already?The Cashios were there for Michael during the trial and they have defended him constantly.Where were you during the trial?Yes, nowhere.Stop this God syndrom and have some respect already.

The Cashios? Haha, that's exactly how I'll start referring to them.

What did the Cashios say during the trial? Considering one of them was co-indicted so was prohibited from talking.
 

Parmenid

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
632
Points
0
Location
Croatia
The Cashios

or Ca$hios

...then again, if that family isn't lying, then I'm just one BIG jerk, and I'm sorry and apologize to the Cascios... but the damn situation is just so... f.. up, we're gettin crazy here
 

barok232

Guest
The Cashios? Haha, that's exactly how I'll start referring to them.

What did the Cashios say during the trial? Considering one of them was co-indicted so was prohibited from talking.

Nice one, the Cashios! :tease:
 

justnat

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
423
Points
18
Was he allowed to testify as a defense witness? Why didn't he?

Funny what he says about the Arvizos lying for money! How much did the Cashios sell these bogus tracks for???

If you asking me, I will not answer because your questions sound rhetorical. I personally believe that the first question should be addressed to T-Mez. As to the second, I personally absolutely certain that the tracks are not bogus.
Just my opinion. Thanks in advance for respecting it.
 

samhabib

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,652
Points
0
This is priceless! For all of those that 'believe' the songs are genuinely Michael Jackson based on the fact that they can't believe that Sony would do something so stupid... READ THIS!

""David Manning" was a fictitious film critic, created by a marketing executive working for Sony Corporation around July 2000 to give consistently good reviews for releases from Sony subsidiary Columbia Pictures. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

Ouch!
 

aganim

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
185
Points
0
This is priceless! For all of those that 'believe' the songs are genuinely Michael Jackson based on the fact that they can't believe that Sony would do something so stupid... READ THIS!

""David Manning" was a fictitious film critic, created by a marketing executive working for Sony Corporation around July 2000 to give consistently good reviews for releases from Sony subsidiary Columbia Pictures. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

Ouch!
That's your proof?
LMAO!
 

samhabib

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,652
Points
0
That's your proof?
LMAO!

No. My proof is in the audio. That link is for those that claim that the reason they believe it's Michael on the tracks is because they fail to believe Sony would do something so stupid.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
What did the Cascios say during the trial? Considering one of them was co-indicted so was prohibited from talking.

Just to answer your question, nothing more, nothing less:
http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?showtopic=7298

He wasn't prohibited from talking, he wasn't even indicted , he was just alleged.

furthermore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPwPNGKX-B8

and even going back to 1993

cascio.jpg



Was he allowed to testify as a defense witness? Why didn't he?

testifying isn't a personal action, in other words you cannot walk in a courtroom and say that I'm going to testify. You need to be called to testify by DA or the defense lawyer. Frank's name was in the witness list but apparently neither Mesereau or the DA called him to the stand.

and please stop accusing people in unrelated stuff with no proof.
 

Sophielo

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
7,285
Points
0
Location
London, England
Guys please be careful please. A lot of things are being said without any proof to back it up. Tone it down please or at least state that its your own opinion when claiming such things.
 

samhabib

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,652
Points
0
testifying isn't a personal action, in other words you cannot walk in a courtroom and say that I'm going to testify. You need to be called to testify by DA or the defense lawyer. Frank's name was in the witness list but apparently neither Mesereau or the DA called him to the stand.

This is fascinating considering he claims in the video to know so much about the child and the mother.

and please stop accusing people in unrelated stuff with no proof.

What is this in relation to?
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
This is fascinating considering he claims in the video to know so much about the child and the mother.

Not really that fascinating. If you listen to T-Mez various statements he said that the mother of the accuser was so unstable that helped them made and win their case. He was confident in his case and didn't see the need to poke it further. He never put Michael on the stand as well. He might have omitted Frank so that the conspiracy claims not get examined. Don't forget the DA. Trial's have 2 sides and any witness could make or break a case for either side. Sure Frank could have been a good defense witness but at the same time DA could have used/played him to build the conspiracy theory. It was T-Mez's choice (not Frank's) and as T-Mez won the case so it was a good decision. What's relevant is that Frank and his family were defending Michael through both allegations.


What is this in relation to?

Your comments about Cascio's. It's one thing to find the songs, vocals and their sale to Sony questionable but it's whole another thing to accuse them of other things especially when you have no proof. It's no different than what media did to Michael his whole life - they accused, convicted and hung him with no proof without even listening to him or allowing him defend himself. You are doing the same thing here. Don't cross the line of questioning people versus accusing/convicting them.
 

Aniram

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,191
Points
48
After listening to Invincible many times this week, especially the song 'Whatever Happens', I'm more confident than ever that it's really Michael on all three of these tracks.
 

Roosje

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
989
Points
0
Location
Netherlands
It's one thing to find the songs, vocals and their sale to Sony questionable but it's whole another thing to accuse them of other things especially when you have no proof. It's no different than what media did to Michael his whole life - they accused, convicted and hung him with no proof without even listening to him or allowing him defend himself. You are doing the same thing here. Don't cross the line of questioning people versus accusing/convicting them.
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 

L.T.D

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,745
Points
63
I just dont like the look on that Eddie Cascio's face. . . .he just looks insincere to me. Especially on Oprah.
 

MJJuniorSinceMW

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Donations
$23.00
Messages
853
Points
63
^
ok L.T.D

Eddie looks insincere to you.
Then it is all clear.
HE MUST BE GUILTY!

LMFAO

@ the samhabib:
To me, you're the perfect definition of a hater.

Your posts are without any merit.
They only spread hate and show that you are uninformed, uneducated & ignorant.
And THAT IS MY opinion!

By the way:
You're on the verge to get on my ignore list. (barok.. also)
 

L.T.D

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,745
Points
63
^
ok L.T.D

Eddie looks insincere to you.
Then it is all clear.
HE MUST BE GUILTY!

LMFAO

I'm glad you understand....Roflmaololhahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@ the samhabib:
To me, you're the perfect definition of a hater.

I'd say the perfect definition of a hater is someone who sounds like they are full of hate. Your post has been full of hate. I'd say you are the perfect definition of a hater.

An MJ hater? No.......nobody here is, and if you cant get through ONE arguement with someone without accusing them of being a hater then you shoudnt be arguing at all.

On what basis are people accusing each other of being MJ haters? Its pathetic, from both sides and it needs to stop. Just because some people believe it is MJ on the song, or just because people dont support this specific album doesnt make them a hater.

So seriously, give it up because its incredibly immature.
 

Garden

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,041
Points
38
I must partly agree.
MJjunior, you better don't write when you feel mad or provocated... better take a deep breath, drink a glass of water and go jogging ;).
Then come back with more peacefull feelings :)
 

MJJuniorSinceMW

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Donations
$23.00
Messages
853
Points
63
^
I'm really still laughing out loudly!

I'm happy & full of joy & pleasure, i'm not an hateful person, but sometimes i get angry...

Last respond to that ish for now.

Hugs & Kisses
 

L.T.D

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,745
Points
63
^
I'm really still laughing out loudly!

I'm happy & full of joy & pleasure, i'm not an hateful person, but sometimes i get angry...

Last respond to that ish for now.

Hugs & Kisses

Yeahh better to just give it up for now :) Especially the laughing bit......it cant be good for you to laugh so long at something that was never even slightly funny. But its the old trick of pretending to laugh at something someone has said to try and demean it. Better I just ignore it I guess. Or just laugh....because that actually is funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top