Do you personally think Michael Jackson is guilty?
 

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

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

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!

Do bears bear and bees be? :laugh:

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.

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

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.

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:

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!

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:

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:

Oh, yeah, I see. To me, the "you personally" automatically negated the presence of any other opinion...

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

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!

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.

Which used to read "pull down your pants little boy".

: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.

I don't think the poll was confusing either. In my personal opinion I think Michael is totally guilty. :nod:

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

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

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

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

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:

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.

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:

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

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:

He must be a Moonlighting fan. :lol:

:nod: You got it!

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

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/h...nt/4610913.stm

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

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?