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.

[diamondsnake]

Originally Posted by jannieC

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

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

You mean a jury who convicts based on the law

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

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]

Originally Posted by jannieC

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

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.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 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

[amber]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

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

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

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

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

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