ForumGarden

You know I was just reading a artical at Foxnews.com, that implies that Paris, and Prince Micheal, are not really biologically his. You know I don't know if thats true, but thats what they said.

kmhowe72 wrote: You know I was just reading a artical at Foxnews.com, that implies that Paris, and Prince Micheal, are not really biologically his. You know I don't know if thats true, but thats what they said.Well, if Foxnews.com reported it, it simply must be true! :-2

If they are indeed not biologically his, and yet he raises them, I shudder to think of the possiblity of them become his future victims.

I have suspected that this is the case for a long, long time.............

I would not believe this muck

abbey wrote: Well, if Foxnews.com reported it, it simply must be true! :-2:yh_giggle LMAO!!!! FOXNEWS is the US equivalent of Iran's media. Party of God nonsense. Amusing at times though!

along-for-the-ride wrote: If they are indeed not biologically his, and yet he raises them, I shudder to think of the possiblity of them become his future victims.


If Jackson is, indeed, a child molestor it would not matter if they are his own children or not. They would all be possible victims. His own children probably more at risk as they would be more accessible.

On the "if" question, I personally think he is guilty for a few reasons but he is not guilty unless the courts find him to be.

pedophiles often raise their own victims. this is nothing new. whether he is biologically their father or not. it's all about access. i agree with Koan.and i think we will have a verdict very soon. the defense was very remiss in resting so early. same mistake geragos made.