0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
We've seen the picture before right? It's probably just a baby-sized doll but they're just trying to make this look bad and wrong... /pull hair/
You know what irks me about articles like this....it's just pure ignorance. suspicious// They always take something and make it a bigger deal than it needs to be. It's always got to be some kind of "weirdness" when it comes to Michael Jackson.I've never understood why people always have to put things in "boxes" or "categories" or attach "labels". If a man has a soft voice or gentle disposition then he's gay, or if a woman likes wearing mens clothes and is very active in sports, then she's "butch" or manly. Boys shouldn't play with dolls, girls have the wear dainty pink little dresses, and if you're an adult you shouldn't play with toys....etc...etc...It's all nonsense! If you're not hurting anyone who cares!?! :evil: They wrote this summary and don't know anything about why he had that doll (but here comes the subtle judgment)...for all they know he could have had it for sentimental reasons, he could have been hiding money in it, or maybe it wasn't even his (who's to say one of the kids didn't leave it there on the bed), maybe looking at it helps him to relax, maybe it was inspiration for a project ...who knows?... WHO CARES!?! What does it have to do with the case?...Did the doll give Michael Jackson the propofol?! (sarcasm) Does telling what decoration was in the room make the prospects or perspective of the case any more clearer? NO!Just always the sensationalism....