Do you personally think Michael Jackson is guilty?

[diamondsnake]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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 - 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]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

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. I think it sounds like a really bad idea, but I don't see why that means the person should be committed.

Originally Posted by 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 ) 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. 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.

[diamondsnake]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I don't think a person can be committed to a mental institution just based on that criterion. 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]

Originally Posted by diamondsnake

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. My point is that I'm pretty sure they can't commit him to a mental institution just based on that. It's kind of like how they couldn't convict him because there was a reasonable doubt. 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.


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

[diamondsnake]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

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

You must be one confused girl!

[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.

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

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

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.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[dudden22]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

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]

Originally Posted by dudden22

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.

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.