Do you personally think Michael Jackson is guilty?

[diamondsnake]

What is your personal opinion? Do you think he was guilty of any of these crimes?

[amber]

Yep. The whole thing will be in the next issue of Der Magazine...

[jannieC]

Yes, guilty. But why we bother even trying to prosecute celebrities is beyond me. :shrug:

[diamondsnake]

Yes, guilty. But why we bother even trying to prosecute celebrities is beyond me. :shrug:
All I know is that even if he didn't do it... he is still a freak! Maybe he doesn't belong in jail but he does belong in a straight jacket and a padded cell. The man has said on national tv that he sleeps with little kids (who are not his family) and it is a beautiful thing? Ick!

[dissention]

Do bears bear and bees be? :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Yes. Jackson is a pedophile. Two of the jurors just admitted on live, national television that they think he is a pedophile, however they didn't have evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Scott Peterson wishes he had Jackos jury.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I believe he is innocent on this particular charge, and I also think he is still pretty whacko. Just because he's whacko although I will not say he's a child molestor. It doesnt matter if MJ was even involved in this case or not, there was not credible evidence IMO, and the prosecution witnesses were terribly unbelievable..

Had it been anyone in his place, I would feel the same way..

Chris

[GateandGarden]

I personally think he's guilty, though I imagine I'll never for certain. Back when I genuinely cared (not sure why I did) months ago, I read quite a bit about it and I had myself convinced of his guilt. But I always felt he'd get off. (No pun intended).

By the way, Christopher, I love your new avatar! :)

[strandinthewind]

Yes. Jackson is a pedophile. Two of the jurors just admitted on live, national television that they think he is a pedophile, however they didn't have evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Scott Peterson wishes he had Jackos jury.


You mean a jury who convicts based on the law :nod:

I always put it this way when people get all up in arms about a jury following the law --- hypothetically, Jane sits on a jury in a murder trial. Jane thinks all abortions are murder. During the course of the trial, Jane discovers the defendant had three abortions due to her husband's incessant raping of her, which eventually ended with the husband's death by self defense from the defendant. Jane knows the defendant is not legally guilty due to the self defense claim but takes it on her own to ignore the law because the defendant already murdered three defenseless children. According to people who think a jury should convict on other than the law, Jane is justified in her actions :shrug:

There are a million more hypos, but that one will suffice. IMO - the person to be angry with is the DA for not waiting for a better case.

[catinthedark]

Yes, guilty. But why we bother even trying to prosecute celebrities is beyond me. :shrug:

My thoughts exactly. But I agree, the defence did succeed at raising reasonable doubt.

Now, more importantly: The topic we SHOULD have for the next poll, Christopher? Do we:

A) LOVE your new avatar

B) Secretly covet your new avatar

C) Feel a new and inexplicable bond with you

D) Have a sudden and undeniable craving for store-bought chocolate chip cookies


Love it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[SteveMacD]

There are a million more hypos, but that one will suffice. IMO - the person to be angry with is the DA for not waiting for a better case.
EXACTLY. To be honest, I can't answer the poll here. Do I think he's guilty? Probably. But whether he's guilty or not is almost irrelevant. The better question is did the prosecution do its job in proving BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Jacko is guilty. HELL NO!

For starters, of all the families to build a case around, they had to choose THIS family :rolleyes: Then, they omitted a bunch of damning evidence, just like what happened in the OJ trial. Sure, we all know the facts, but if those facts aren't presented as part of the prosecution's case, then the jury can't base their vertict on THOSE facts. As Bob Welch said, it's watcha don't say!

[strandinthewind]

That is why this poll, though well intended, is a but misleading. The question of MJ's overall guilt was not before this jury. All they had to determine was guilt on the facts before them :cool:

[amber]

That is why this poll, though well intended, is a but misleading. The question of MJ's overall guilt was not before this jury. All they had to determine was guilt on the facts before them :cool:
I didn't think it was misleading at all, as it says, "do you personally think MJ is guilty" :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I didn't think it was misleading at all, as it says, "do you personally think MJ is guilty" :cool:


true - but when I read it, I thought they "do you personally think MJ is guilty" in this trial, as that was what was the big issue today. But, I guess people read it differently, thus, the non-intended misleading nature I suggested :cool:

He also said "Do you think he was guilty of any of these crimes" and he was just aquitted of four sep. crimes with a few counts of each :shrug:

[amber]

true - but when I read it, I thought they "do you personally think MJ is guilty" in this trial, as that was what was the big issue today. But, I guess people read it differently, thus, the non-intended misleading nature I suggested :cool:
Oh, yeah, I see. To me, the "you personally" automatically negated the presence of any other opinion...

[diamondsnake]

By the way, Christopher, I love your new avatar! :)

Thanks! I'm on a horrible low carb diet right now, so I have to live vicariously through the cookie monster!

[gldstwmn]

You mean a jury who convicts based on the law :nod:

I always put it this way when people get all up in arms about a jury following the law --- hypothetically, Jane sits on a jury in a murder trial. Jane thinks all abortions are murder. During the course of the trial, Jane discovers the defendant had three abortions due to her husband's incessant raping of her, which eventually ended with the husband's death by self defense from the defendant. Jane knows the defendant is not legally guilty due to the self defense claim but takes it on her own to ignore the law because the defendant already murdered three defenseless children. According to people who think a jury should convict on other than the law, Jane is justified in her actions :shrug:

There are a million more hypos, but that one will suffice. IMO - the person to be angry with is the DA for not waiting for a better case.

I'm not angry with the jury darling, I think they did their job. I'm just saying what I saw the foreperson and one other juror say live on Larry King. I think Jacko got a good jury.

[strandinthewind]

I'm not angry with the jury darling, I think they did their job. I'm just saying what I saw the foreperson and one other juror say live on Larry King. I think Jacko got a good jury.


I know - I thought I was agreeing with that/you - mea culpa!

[Moony]

Yep. He practically has "gulity-ass-mother****er" embossed in his forehead makeup.

[dissention]

Yep. He practically has "gulity-ass-mother****er" embossed in his forehead makeup.

Not that you can see it with the brow lift being as tight and high as it is.

[amber]

Yep. He practically has "gulity-ass-mother****er" embossed in his forehead makeup.
Which used to read "pull down your pants little boy".

[Moony]

:laugh: I love us.

(us being Amber, Diss, and me :lol: )

[amber]

:laugh: I love us.

(us being Amber, Diss, and me :lol: )
Okay, but you stand next to him. I don't want to catch his cooties.

[golden braid]

That is why this poll, though well intended, is a but misleading. The question of MJ's overall guilt was not before this jury. All they had to determine was guilt on the facts before them :cool:
I don't think the poll was confusing either. In my personal opinion I think Michael is totally guilty. :nod:

[desertangel]

For starters, of all the families to build a case around, they had to choose THIS family :rolleyes:

I often thought perhaps Jacko surrounds himself by these kind of people so he can prey on them, knowing full well if any of them brought charges against him, their character would get in the way of him being prosecuted. He's no dummy.

And what of all these "disgruntled ex-employees" who were speaking so badly of him. Why did they all need to be fired?

Are we to believe that Jacko is the victim here? In all probability, I suppose it is possible... but like most of you here have said, what he has done to himself makes it hard for any halfway-normal person to believe that he's not sick and twisted enough to molest small children. A court of law cannot find a person guilty for looking weird or having odd behavior.

Jacko's admission of unrelated children sleeping in his bed is a HUGE red-flag. Why can't the DA send a "plant" to his house. If he wanted him that bad, would it not be within his jurisdiction to set up a sting? I dunno... :shrug: I think Jacko is a lot smarter than that DA.


ching

Laura

[Gailh]

I personally don't think the prosecution proved their case "beyond reasonable doubt".

IMO the man is weird. It is NOT appropriate for an adult male to share his bed with a child he is not closely related to even if nothing happened.

As someone on British radio said this morning the jury may have found him not guilty but would any of them let their kids stay at Neverland?

I wouldn't let any child set foot in that place.

gail

[lagringader&r]

I think guilty as sin, but I guess we'll never know..

[GODDESS6]

guilty as sin, but got off becuz of 1 word...CELEBRITY :distress: ~

[irishgrl]

I personally think MJ is a child molester/sexual predator who thumbs his nose at the rest of us. Can you imagine the GLEE now? He's beyond any further prosecution, this case will give him the green light to do what he wants with impugnity. He is now untouchable. If on the other hand any other male off the street did the same things they'd be measured for their new prison duds pronto.

by the way, any mother who lets their child spend the night at his house should have her kids taken away from her for child endangerment. The first blame is HERS. its one thing to have MJ grant a wish for a dying kid, its another to let your kids spend the night at his house (in his bed) ALONE.....

I wish he would become a pariah like OJ did, but I dont know if that will happen... :shrug:

[GateandGarden]

I personally think MJ is a child molester/sexual predator who thumbs his nose at the rest of us. Can you imagine the GLEE now? He's beyond any further prosecution, this case will give him the green light to do what he wants with impugnity. He is now untouchable. If on the other hand any other male off the street did the same things they'd be measured for their new prison duds pronto.What if it happens with another child and some other family chooses to charge him with the same crimes? He could have to go through all of this again, hypothetically, right? As long as it's not the same family with the accusations?

[Kelly]

I think he could have done it in the past but I do not think he is guilty of these particular charges. I also heard one juror say he thought it was possible that Jackson had molested the prior accuser but he had no way of knowing for sure as he never heard the kid testify. He went on to say that the prosecution did not prove its case for this boy and all the family members seemed uncredible. There was plenty of reasonable doubt, IMHO. One part of the kids story I find most disturbing is his allegation that the molestation happened AFTER the documentary when the rebuttal video was being made and all the worlds attention was on this situation. That sounds odd to me.

[mondaymornin1]

Do bears bear and bees be? :laugh:

My dad says that! Love it! :laugh: :laugh:

Anyhooo, I think MJ is guilty. It's like 2 local DJ's said this morning---Martha Stewart was convicted and spent some time in "the cage"---but MJ is found not guilty. Just goes to show you that in America, you can mess with our kids, but don't f*#$ with our money!! :rolleyes:

[gldstwmn]

I know - I thought I was agreeing with that/you - mea culpa!

Yes. On re-reading it this morning we agree completely. :)

[strandinthewind]

It juswt amazes me that people think MJ was aquitted because of his celebrity. Every single juror repeatedly said it was because the alleged victim's mother was a grifter and a liar who had been covicted as such in the past and all of the prosecution's witnesses were not credible. They also said that they considered MJ just as they would any other person. So, clearly and from the horses' mouths, celebrity was not a factor in the jury's decision. But, people will think what they want and who am I to keep them down :cool:

[dissention]

My dad says that! Love it! :laugh: :laugh:


He must be a Moonlighting fan. :lol:

[mondaymornin1]

He must be a Moonlighting fan. :lol:


:nod: You got it!

[dissention]

:nod: You got it!

Squuuuuueeeeeeeee. Me, too. :laugh: I haven't stopped watching the new DVDs since I got them.

[gldstwmn]

It juswt amazes me that people think MJ was aquitted because of his celebrity. Every single juror repeatedly said it was because the alleged victim's mother was a grifter and a liar who had been covicted as such in the past and all of the prosecution's witnesses were not credible. They also said that they considered MJ just as they would any other person. So, clearly and from the horses' mouths, celebrity was not a factor in the jury's decision. But, people will think what they want and who am I to keep them down :cool:

I was very impressed with what I saw of this jury. Did he have a jury consultant? If so, they did a very good job.

[strandinthewind]

I was very impressed with what I saw of this jury. Did he have a jury consultant? If so, they did a very good job.

I can assure you he had a one if not two jury consultants and they probably made well over a hundred grand each - money well spent considering one of the jurors, I think, was the victim of sexual abuse as a child - though I may have misremembered that.

Here is an article on the jurors:

Who are the Jackson trial jurors?

By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Santa Maria

Michael Jackson's fate was decided by a diverse jury of eight women and four men.

Their names are kept secret by the court, but glimpses into their private lives were revealed by questionnaires they submitted during the screening process and during jury selection.

A pool of 250 prospective jurors was whittled down to 12 in a process that required them to answer a number of questions ranging from whether they had ever visited Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch, to whether anyone they knew had been a victim of sexual abuse.

The jury's ethnic make-up - eight whites, three Latinos and one Asian - roughly reflects the spread of those eligible for jury duty in Santa Barbara County, home to the town of Santa Maria where Jackson's trial has been taking place.

About 2% of the county's population is black and one black juror is among the reserve jury members.

Distrusted

Most jurors told lawyers they enjoyed Jackson's music and were impressed by his career. Many also said they distrusted what they heard in the media, and few had seen recent interviews with the pop star.

Half the jurors have college degrees, half have full-time jobs and two are retired. There are eight parents among them, and four without children.

They range in age from 20 to 79 and include professionals, service workers, students and retirees:

Juror 1 - White male, 62
He is a civil engineer with a graduate degree. He has been married for the last 13 years and has four grown children. He owns a home in Santa Maria.

Juror 2 - Latino male, 63
A retired school counsellor. He enjoys bronze casting, has a passion for Western art and is an avid horseman.

Juror 3 - White female, 53
She has been a horse trainer for 33 years and said she was a subject of inaccurate media coverage when she was an Olympic hopeful.

Juror 4 - White female, 52
Former computer programmer and systems analyst who also used to be a high school maths teacher. She now says she is a homemaker with two teenage children, married to university researcher.

Juror 5 - White female, 79
The oldest juror is a grandmother who has lived in Santa Maria all her life. A widow with some college education, she is also a movie buff and a fan of the TV show Jeopardy. She has a close relative who is a registered sex offender.

Juror 6 - White female, 22
A physical therapy aide who works in a nursing home. She is a mother with two daughters and lives with her boyfriend.

Juror 7 - White male, 21
A student with a high school degree who lives in Santa Maria. He is a wheelchair user. His father has served in the US Air Force. A keen motorsports fan, he dreams of becoming a sports journalist.

Juror 8 - White female, 42
This juror is a special needs educational aide. Her four children are aged four to 20 years old.

Juror 9 - Asian female, 39
An office specialist for the county government whose first language is Indonesian. She has been married to a local TV reporter for eight-and-a-half years but has no children.

Juror 10 - White female, 45
A supermarket worker who previously sold radio advertising. She has three children aged 14 to 26.

Juror 11 - Latino male, 20
Single with no children, and has a disabled mother. Says he is a Simpsons fan and doesn't really watch television news. Lists his job as an assistant head cashier.

Juror 12 - Latino female, 44
Social services supervisor for the last 12 years whose ex-husband is a Santa Maria police officer. Says she also has a friend who is a police detective. Her half-brother served in Vietnam.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/4610913.stm

Published: 2005/06/05 09:29:07 GMT

[bikerchic]

What do you guy's think of MJ's fans? Are they crazy or just loyal? At first I thought they are just as f**king whacked as he is and why are they standing out there day after day supporting him when he could be a possible child molester? But then I thought what if Lindsey Buckingham (god forbid, I don't even like to think it, none alone write it) was up on the same charges (now I'm only using him as an example because I don't have any other male musical artist that I love as much as Lindsey to be able to relate properly), I would believe in his innocence, and if I lived near the court house (and didn't have a job and nothing better to do :laugh: ) I would probably be there supporting him. Maybe this has already been discussed :sorry: but I didn't read the whole thread, just curious what ya'll thought?

[diamondsnake]

I wish he would become a pariah like OJ did, but I dont know if that will happen... :shrug:

I think he will. I don't see any sort of comeback for him because he is just painful to look at. He is the ugliest man alive (if I do say so myself), he is just plain a freak. People appreciate the Michael Jackson of old but the people that currently respect the man are few and far between.

Someone like Martha Stewart can make this big comeback because people can relate and she is still the same person and I think people respect that fact that she did serve her time, held her head up high and is ready to start a new chapter in her life.

Michael Jackson is going to be the new OJ. I don't see him being a guest on Oprah anytime soon!

[strandinthewind]

As if on cue:

Attorney: Jackson will be more careful



Programming Note: Michael Jackson's lead defense attorney, Tom Mesereau, discusses the acquittal and how Jackson is doing, Larry King Live, tonight at 9 ET.

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- Michael Jackson's lead defense attorney said Tuesday that he believes his client's behavior will change now that Jackson has been acquitted of charges including child molestation.

Thomas Mesereau Jr. says Jackson needs to be "tougher with who he lets into his life."

"He's allowed families to come into his life, not just young boys. Their parents were allowed to stay over, they did stay over, everything was done with the parents' permission," Mesereau said. "They were allowed to come in and out of his room. The prosecution tried to misinterpret and misconstrue what Michael Jackson did, and they failed, as they should have."

Mesereau bristled when asked if he believed Jackson would cease sleeping in the same bed with young boys.

"You've misinterpreted what he's said in the past," Mesereau told CNN's Soledad O'Brien, who asked whether the not-guilty verdict meant the sleepovers would stop.

Jackson was accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy two years ago when they were sleeping alone together in his bed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County.

The jury acquitted Jackson on all 10 counts. (Verdict list)

One of the jurors, however, said Tuesday he hopes the trial served as a "wake-up call" for Jackson and that his behavior would change.

"I don't have a problem with the decision that I made in this case," Raymond Hultman told CNN's "American Morning."

"I have a problem with Michael Jackson's behavior. And all I can say at this point is that I hope he recognizes that this is a serious problem and that his behavior is going to be affected in some way by it. I've learned a lot from this case, and I hope he does as well," Hultman said.

The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children in his bed.

But Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retired high school counselor from Santa Maria, said jurors were instructed by the judge to base their verdicts on the facts of the case, not "our beliefs or our own personal thoughts." (Full story)

Hultman said Monday he thought that Jackson had previously molested boys, although he said there was reasonable doubt as to whether he committed the crimes he was charged with.

"Michael Jackson has not molested anyone," Mesereau said.

"As far as Neverland and his home, he's been too nice to too many people. You know, people get to Michael with a sad story about their life, and he's so generous, he's so kindhearted, he takes people in and does nice things for them, and they suddenly decide they want to get rich off of Michael Jackson, and that has to change. He has to be a lot tougher with who he lets into his life, and who he allows to run around his home, and that will happen."

Asked specifically about the sleepovers with boys, Mesereau said, "I don't know what you mean by 'sleepover,' because he's allowed to have his own children into his room, he's allowed to have friends come into his room if he chooses, but he's not going to allow people like the ones who accused him of this to enter his life."

Mesereau said, "Michael Jackson will do what he is allowed to do in his own home, but he'll be very careful who he allows into his home."

Jackson made no comment, and didn't even smile, as he left the Santa Maria courthouse after the verdict Monday, surrounded by his parents and siblings.

He did wave and blow kisses to hundreds of supporters, who screamed, hugged one another and threw confetti when they heard the news. Some were overcome with tears of joy. (Fans react)

Jackson's brother, Jermaine, told CNN's "Larry King Live" his family was "very, very happy."

"Like we always felt from the very beginning and knew, he was one thousand percent innocent," he said. "It takes one person to tell the truth, but it takes many to concoct a lie."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/14/jackson.main/index.html

____________________________________________________

What a stupid stupid man to allow any child whatsoever to step foot on the grounds of his estate :eek: I hope he videotapes everything they do because he is getting ready for another suit(s).

[diamondsnake]

It juswt amazes me that people think MJ was aquitted because of his celebrity. Every single juror repeatedly said it was because the alleged victim's mother was a grifter and a liar who had been covicted as such in the past and all of the prosecution's witnesses were not credible. They also said that they considered MJ just as they would any other person. So, clearly and from the horses' mouths, celebrity was not a factor in the jury's decision. But, people will think what they want and who am I to keep them down :cool:
If he didn't do it and there is reasonable doubt then he doesn't belong in prison. I do think that he belongs in a nut house though and should not be aloud to roam the streets. Anyone that admits to sleeping with little boys that are not part of his family should be locked away.

[strandinthewind]

If he didn't do it and there is reasonable doubt then he doesn't belong in prison. I do think that he belongs in a nut house though and should not be aloud to roam the streets. Anyone that admits to sleeping with little boys that are not part of his family should be locked away.


Actually, he doesn't belong in prison only if there is reasonable doubt, legal culpability does not really care whether one actually did a crime - sad, very true.

[diamondsnake]

What do you guy's think of MJ's fans? Are they crazy or just loyal? At first I thought they are just as f**king whacked as he is and why are they standing out there day after day supporting him when he could be a possible child molester? But then I thought what if Lindsey Buckingham (god forbid, I don't even like to think it, none alone write it) was up on the same charges (now I'm only using him as an example because I don't have any other male musical artist that I love as much as Lindsey to be able to relate properly), I would believe in his innocence, and if I lived near the court house (and didn't have a job and nothing better to do :laugh: ) I would probably be there supporting him. Maybe this has already been discussed :sorry: but I didn't read the whole thread, just curious what ya'll thought?
See that is hard to say. Someone like MJ is really insane and you can easily believe the charges. With someone like Lindsey, you just know that the charges would be false because he has never acted strange or done anything that would lead you to belive that he would do that. With MJ, he clearly has some psychological issues so it wouldn't be completely out of the blue for sexual molestation charges to come up.

If Lindsey was the celeb in question I would be on Lindsey's side because I know he could never do that.

[diamondsnake]

Actually, he doesn't belong in prison only if there is reasonable doubt, legal culpability does not really care whether one actually did a crime - sad, very true.
See, I hate that. How can someone who everyone knows did a crime get off scot free? I guess on the other side of things, this help protect innocent people who may get sent to jail and not really deserve to be there...

[dissention]

See that is hard to say. Someone like MJ is really insane and you can easily believe the charges. With someone like Lindsey, you just know that the charges would be false because he has never acted strange or done anything that would lead you to belive that he would do that. With MJ, he clearly has some psychological issues so it wouldn't be completely out of the blue for sexual molestation charges to come up.

If Lindsey was the celeb in question I would be on Lindsey's side because I know he could never do that.

I wouldn't be on anyone's side until I saw the evidence.

[strandinthewind]

I wouldn't be on anyone's side until I saw the evidence.


ITA - it is rare for a DA or whomever to bring charges based on no evidence whatsoever. I mean the current MJ case had a basis in fact in that more than this claim existed and he sleeps with little boys and, to a lesser extent, girls. So and although a pissed off DA can indict a baked potatoe should they take a notion to :eek: - 9/10 there is some evidence to support the charge as DA's are not usually willing to look like complete fools in court.

[GateandGarden]

Anyone that admits to sleeping with little boys that are not part of his family should be locked away.I don't think a person can be committed to a mental institution just based on that criterion. :shrug: I think it sounds like a really bad idea, but I don't see why that means the person should be committed.

What do you guy's think of MJ's fans? Are they crazy or just loyal? At first I thought they are just as f**king whacked as he is and why are they standing out there day after day supporting him when he could be a possible child molester? But then I thought what if Lindsey Buckingham (god forbid, I don't even like to think it, none alone write it) was up on the same charges (now I'm only using him as an example because I don't have any other male musical artist that I love as much as Lindsey to be able to relate properly), I would believe in his innocence, and if I lived near the court house (and didn't have a job and nothing better to do ) I would probably be there supporting him. Maybe this has already been discussed but I didn't read the whole thread, just curious what ya'll thought?I can say with all certainty that I would not be doing what those people are doing. The only circumstances under which I would do something like that would be if a good friend or family member was charged with a crime and I believed in that person. If I were a celebrity I would not want strangers at my house; I would want only my friends and family around me during such a time. This whole concept of quitting one's job to hang out at some famous person's ranch is so foreign to me. I cannot relate to that level of devotion to a celebrity. And there's another issue--those people don't know if he did it or not! Of course, you can't convince them that there's even a possibility that he committed a crime(s), but I think most of us would realize that as much as we adore what Fleetwood Mac, for instance, has done for us with the music they've made, that doesn't mean any member is automatically innocent. I can't support someone in that manner if I'm not certain of his or her innocence. :shrug: And I can't see how I would be sure if I didn't know the person really well. Even then I guess anything could happen, but I don't want to sound more cynical than I already do. :laugh:

[diamondsnake]

I don't think a person can be committed to a mental institution just based on that criterion. :shrug: I think it sounds like a really bad idea, but I don't see why that means the person should be committed.

You don't think that a 40 year-old man saying that he is sleeping with strange boys and it is a "beautiful thing" is cause for concern? I just don't think it is safe for him to be roaming the streets...

[GateandGarden]

You don't think that a 40 year-old man saying that he is sleeping with strange boys and it is a "beautiful thing" is cause for concern? I just don't think it is safe for him to be roaming the streets...I do think it's a cause for concern and I don't think it's safe for children to be around him. I didn't say otherwise. :shrug: My point is that I'm pretty sure they can't commit him to a mental institution just based on that. :shrug: It's kind of like how they couldn't convict him because there was a reasonable doubt. :shrug: They had to work within the law. Social workers, psychologists, etc., have their own guidelines and rules they have to follow, much like judges, juries, etc. :shrug:


I realized I just used way too many of these--:shrug: What did I use all those for? :laugh:

[diamondsnake]

I realized I just used way too many of these--:shrug: What did I use all those for? :laugh:

You must be one confused girl! :shrug: :shrug: :xoxo:

[SteveMacD]

No more sleepovers for Jackson: lawyer
CBC News

A day after seeing his client acquitted of child molestation charges, Michael Jackson's lawyer said Tuesday that the singer no longer plans to sleep in the same bed as young boys.

"He's not going to do that anymore," said Thomas Mesereau on NBC's Today show. "He's not going to make himself vulnerable to this anymore."

Mesereau said Jackson will need time to recover from the ordeal of the trial, which he called a "terrible, terrible process."

"It's going to be a period of recovery for him because physically he deteriorated," said Mesereau. "He wasn't eating, he wasn't sleeping well and it was a terrible ordeal for him."

A jury acquitted Jackson on Monday of 10 charges, including child molestation, conspiring to keep the boy and his family on the grounds of the estate and giving alcohol to a minor.

His lawyers had argued he was the victim of an extortion attempt by the mother of a teenage cancer survivor who claimed Jackson molested him.

Neither Jackson nor his family have publicly commented on the verdict. Raymone Bain, his media representative throughout the four-month trial, was dismissed last week.

Jackson returned to his Neverland ranch immediately after hearing the verdict without speaking to the throngs of fans and media gathered outside the Santa Maria courthouse.

However, Jackson's official website, mjjsource.com, opens with a triumphal fanfare and the word "Innocent." A hand shows "V" for victory before a series of animated graphics link the date of Jackson's acquittal with other historical milestones, including Martin Luther King's birthday, the day Nelson Mandela was freed and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Members of the jury, however, have been speaking out about Jackson and the trial. One juror said he believed the 46-year-old singer "probably has molested boys."

Other jurors admitted they were troubled by Jackson's admission he slept in the same bed as young boys, but that prosecutors hadn't proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

[highpriestess53]

for one minute that the wack job here is the boys mother...Janet Jackson (formerly Arvizo) ironically...she must have known about the previous allegations made and the pay offs in similar circumstances. Yet she still allowed her boys that level of contact with MJ. Do you suppose that a mother with her 'dubious past' is beyond putting her sons in 'harms' way hoping to get the big pay off using the US legal system as a way of doing so? This was a civil prosecution not a private one so there would be no substantial legal costs to be found by the family....and usually with a jail sentence comes a large sum of compensation for the victim. Hell of a gamble to take...huh?

Don't get me wrong I do believe that MJ is 100% certifiable and has probably engaged in lewd acts with and molestation of boys....but maybe on this occasion the jury did their job well basing their verdicts on the facts in front of them and in doing so foiling Janet Jackson's plans to obtain a large sum of money to which she is not entitled having used her sons as the bait. :shrug:

Perhaps Janet Jackson should be investigated for knowingly putting her children at risk. :(

[GypsySorcerer]

for one minute that the wack job here is the boys mother...Janet Jackson (formerly Arvizo) ironically...she must have known about the previous allegations made and the pay offs in similar circumstances. Yet she still allowed her boys that level of contact with MJ. Do you suppose that a mother with her 'dubious past' is beyond putting her sons in 'harms' way hoping to get the big pay off using the US legal system as a way of doing so? This was a civil prosecution not a private one so there would be no substantial legal costs to be found by the family....and usually with a jail sentence comes a large sum of compensation for the victim. Hell of a gamble to take...huh?

Don't get me wrong I do believe that MJ is 100% certifiable and has probably engaged in lewd acts with and molestation of boys....but maybe on this occasion the jury did their job well basing their verdicts on the facts in front of them and in doing so foiling Janet Jackson's plans to obtain a large sum of money to which she is not entitled having used her sons as the bait. :shrug:

Perhaps Janet Jackson should be investigated for knowingly putting her children at risk. :(

That's what I think. Who the hell in their right mind would allow their children to be around Jacko?

[highpriestess53]

That's what I think. Who the hell in their right mind would allow their children to be around Jacko?


I have three kids....and there is no way on this earth that I would even entertain accepting an invitation to the Neverland Ranch even if it were handed to me on a plate. For me the risks would be far too great....and you know what really strikes me is that the Arvizo boys mother didn't come across as angry at all. If it was my kids having been abused in such a way I would find a way of taking some very serious personal revenge. <a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzfw003' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/14/14_6_12.gif' alt='Chain Gun' border=0></a>

[gldstwmn]

What do you guy's think of MJ's fans? Are they crazy or just loyal? At first I thought they are just as f**king whacked as he is and why are they standing out there day after day supporting him when he could be a possible child molester?

My take on those people is that most of them were being paid to be there by Camp Jackson for the purpose of the cameras. I could be wrong. :shrug:

[dudden22]

a series of animated graphics link the date of Jackson's acquittal with other historical milestones, including Martin Luther King's birthday, the day Nelson Mandela was freed and the fall of the Berlin Wall.



I still cannot believe he has the arrogance to even associate his acquittal with these events. Let's see MLK's bithday vs the acquittal of a child molester.

I hope is penis looks like his nose.

[GateandGarden]

I still cannot believe he has the arrogance to even associate his acquittal with these events. Let's see MLK's bithday vs the acquittal of a child molester.

I hope is penis looks like his nose.I can't believe he can be that arrogant, either. And I know that he thinks quite a lot of himself, but that is worse than I thought! Ridiculous!

[littlecricket2]

Not that I can stand Michael Jackson or anything, but these polls are silly because I don't think anyone who wasn't there as the alleged incidents were taking place or in the court room has the right to even their own personal opinion, because no one who wasn't there (in his bedroom or in the courtroom) has enough information to form an accurate personal opinion. So my personal opinion on his guilt is that I don't have one since I wasn't there. And furthermore, I think it's irresponsible to be spouting off about one's personal opinion on his guilt if one is not a) an alleged victim, or b) in the courtroom hearing all the evidence.

Maybe Jacko's a child molester and maybe there are also parents out there who know he's a weirdo and will whore their kids out to him because they want money; they don't care if he's really doing it or not. You have to wonder about parents who let their kids step foot on his property, seriously. Jacko's been known for being a little out there and engaging in questionable activities for a long time. It's not like Jacko's kidnapping these kids and taking them there; initially they're going willingly and they're taken by their parents. Even if he's free to roam the streets for the rest of his natural life, I won't worry about him getting to any kids I love because they simply won't ever go near him. Shouldn't be too hard to avoid him. He's practically afraid of people and the only way anyone can get near him is if they're expressly invited. :shrug:

Or maybe Jacko's just very childlike and innocent and socially maladjusted and doesn't know the difference between what's appropriate and what isn't. In any case, the only people who are getting molested from this point forward are kids whose parents or caregivers don't mind them being molested. :shocked:

[dudden22]

Not that I can stand And furthermore, I think it's irresponsible to be spouting off about one's personal opinion on his guilt if one is not a) an alleged victim, or b) in the courtroom hearing all the evidence.[/

I will judge anybody who is over 40, thinks it is normal to invite other people's children into his bed for a sleep over, and has a book filled with naked boys. Irresponsible or not!

Or maybe Jacko's just very childlike and innocent and socially maladjusted and doesn't know the difference between what's appropriate and what isn't.: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Please

In any case, the only people who are getting molested from this point forward are kids whose parents or caregivers don't mind them being molested. :shocked:

That is how I felt after the first allegation. Any parents who send their children to a sleep over at Michael Jackson's house should be reported to child services.

[diamondsnake]

Not that I can stand Michael Jackson or anything, but these polls are silly because I don't think anyone who wasn't there as the alleged incidents were taking place or in the court room has the right to even their own personal opinion, because no one who wasn't there (in his bedroom or in the courtroom) has enough information to form an accurate personal opinion. So my personal opinion on his guilt is that I don't have one since I wasn't there. And furthermore, I think it's irresponsible to be spouting off about one's personal opinion on his guilt if one is not a) an alleged victim, or b) in the courtroom hearing all the evidence.

Calm down! This is just a silly internet poll I made up. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks at this point because he got off scot free. But, that doesn't mean it is "irresponsible" to ask people their gut feeling on the case.

[GateandGarden]

Not that I can stand Michael Jackson or anything, but these polls are silly because I don't think anyone who wasn't there as the alleged incidents were taking place or in the court room has the right to even their own personal opinion, because no one who wasn't there (in his bedroom or in the courtroom) has enough information to form an accurate personal opinion. So my personal opinion on his guilt is that I don't have one since I wasn't there. And furthermore, I think it's irresponsible to be spouting off about one's personal opinion on his guilt if one is not a) an alleged victim, or b) in the courtroom hearing all the evidence. I have opinions about many historical events for which I was not alive to be present. Many people have opinions about the Kennedy assassionation, for example, and they were not present for the murder or the trial.

I'm not saying anything groundbreaking here, but...just saying. :shrug:

[littlecricket2]

Ok, maybe irresponsible was the wrong choice of words, since expressing our opinions one way or the other doesn't really change the verdict. I was only thinking of how popular opinion (which is often misinformed) can sometimes sway outcomes. Maybe futile is a better word in this case? Either way, I don't really think my opinion on Michael's guilt matters. My gut feeling is that he's very strange, but beyond that there are soooo many possibilities that I don't even feel like typing them all out. :shrug:

[GateandGarden]

Ok, maybe irresponsible was the wrong choice of words, since expressing our opinions one way or the other doesn't really change the verdict. I was only thinking of how popular opinion (which is often misinformed) can sometimes sway outcomes. Maybe futile is a better word in this case? Either way, I don't really think my opinion on Michael's guilt matters. My gut feeling is that he's very strange, but beyond that there are soooo many possibilities that I don't even feel like typing them all out. :shrug:Yeah, I think you're right--it is basically futile. But lots of the things we get all up in arms about on this board are futile to discuss, really. :laugh: (I'm definitely guilty of that).

[strandinthewind]

Yeah, I think you're right--it is basically futile. But lots of the things we get all up in arms about on this board are futile to discuss, really. :laugh: (I'm definitely guilty of that).


IMO - that is the cool thing about this board :shrug: