Michael Jackson trial... guilty or no ??

[morefeatherz]

Sharing a bed with someone and sexually molesting them are two completely different things. Have you ever slept in the same bed with a younger kid or relative? If so does that automatically mean you molested them? I have yet to see any evidence that says he molested any kid. If you were facing going to prison for 30 years, wouldn't you wants facts sending you there instead of personal preferences towards your lifestyle? Again, the man is a freak and he's more than weird. But I have yet to see FACTS that says he's guilty of molesting anyone.

 

[kis123]

Sharing a bed with someone and sexually molesting them are two completely different things. Have you ever slept in the same bed with a younger kid or relative? If so does that automatically mean you molested them? I have yet to see any evidence that says he molested any kid. If you were facing going to prison for 30 years, wouldn't you wants facts sending you there instead of personal preferences towards your lifestyle? Again, the man is a freak and he's more than weird. But I have yet to see FACTS that says he's guilty of molesting anyone.

What little evidence they have is circumstantial at best. I don't think he'll be convicted. Besides, he wouldn't last thirty seconds in jail! If they don't have enough factual evidence to convict, they should let him go.

Neither of his ex wives (who would know best) said he was a pedophile. Yeah, he's wierd as hell, but is he a pedophile? If so, someone should find more than circumstantial evidence to the fact.

Let's talk about the alleged victim and his family....they're a bunch of grifters who try to make a living out of lawsuits. They even tried to pimp welfare out of money. Maybe someone should get a job like the rest of the real world. All the former Jackson employees had shaky histories as well. If you find someone the defense couldn't discredit, I may change my mind. But so far, all of them had hidden agendas. If Jackson is guilty, these clowns make it easy for an acquittal!

He has serious issues-he needs serious psychotherapy, not jail!

His family knew he isn't right in the head, but let him continue with his antics to the point he's being accused of child molestation. They should all be ashamed of themselves! They were too busy living off of him than to get him the help he needed years ago.

I think he's such an eternal child that he couldn't possibly do this. But it looks really bad and he really needs help.

 

[kis123]

hate me if you must, maybe I am just a midwestern country boy of something of that nature..... but he went from black man to white woman. I am leaning toward guilty.

the metalhead

Can you please tell me what this has to do with anything? There are many people addicted to plastic surgery. Jackson just happens to be famous. It's a quantum leap from surgery addict to child molester.

I get nothing out of defending him. I just want to hear some solid, incontestable evidence against him. Otherwise, they acquitted OJ with a helluva lot more evidence to his guilt. And I feel from the bottom of my heart he killed his ex-and had plenty of reasons to do it.

If they can't find witnesses that the defense can't crack, they're going to have to let him go.

 

[morefeatherz]

I get nothing out of defending him. I just want to hear some solid, incontestable evidence against him. Otherwise, they acquitted OJ with a helluva lot more evidence to his guilt. And I feel from the bottom of my heart he killed his ex-and had plenty of reasons to do it.

If they can't find witnesses that the defense can't crack, they're going to have to let him go.

Very well said Kis, and I totally agree. If he is guilty let's hear evidence and facts. As of right now I have yet to see or hear anything that says he molested anyone.

I guess we'll just have to see what the courts decide.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Well when the man says he's shares a bed with kids than that to me says he's guilty. Unless it's natural for grown men to share a bed with the neighbor hood kids around your town, but around mine that's considered taboo.

As others have said, his sharing a bed with children is not illegal and is not what he will or will not be found guilty of. Whether he molested them or not is the issue. I understand that you feel a grown man sleeping with children is wrong, and that it counts as molestation, but the fact is that the law does not see it that way. Whether anyone thinks it is wrong or not, the law is still the law, and a person cannot be found guilty of a crime that is not a crime, and his sleeping with children is not a crime as the law sees it today. That may well change after this case, but then you run into ex post facto rules and double jeopardy and thus he could not be tried for it again.

Facts will decide this case, as morefeatherz stated. Unless it is conclusively proven that he did in fact molest any of the children, he will be released. This is what courts are designed to do; remove emotion and personal preference from the determination of guilt or innocence. We should be grateful for that.



...Lord, why am I getting involved?

 

[TheFactor]

Sharing a bed with someone and sexually molesting them are two completely different things. Have you ever slept in the same bed with a younger kid or relative? If so does that automatically mean you molested them? I have yet to see any evidence that says he molested any kid. If you were facing going to prison for 30 years, wouldn't you wants facts sending you there instead of personal preferences towards your lifestyle? Again, the man is a freak and he's more than weird. But I have yet to see FACTS that says he's guilty of molesting anyone.

No I have never shared a bed with a little kid or a relative younger than me, and no it doesn't automatically make you a molester, but lets get a few things straight.

1. No sane parent would allow a kid to sleep over at a grown man's house.

2. There is a difference between sleeping in the same bed with a relative and sleeping in the same bed with a complete stranger, and that stranger being a little kid!

And I don't know what you expect of a parent, if my kid came home saying he slept in the same bed with little Billy's father, I'd go see little Billy's father and beat the hell out of him. Any good, and sane parent would. And to tell the truth, thats all the evidence they need to convict that guy, ok. The fact that he shared a bed with a little kid, that wasn't his own is all the evidence they need.

But I have a question for you morefeatherz, what would you do if your kid came home and told you that Jackson was sharing a bed with him? What would you think?

 

[TheFactor]

As others have said, his sharing a bed with children is not illegal and is not what he will or will not be found guilty of. Whether he molested them or not is the issue. I understand that you feel a grown man sleeping with children is wrong, and that it counts as molestation, but the fact is that the law does not see it that way. Whether anyone thinks it is wrong or not, the law is still the law, and a person cannot be found guilty of a crime that is not a crime, and his sleeping with children is not a crime as the law sees it today. That may well change after this case, but then you run into ex post facto rules and double jeopardy and thus he could not be tried for it again.

Didn't he pay off the last family that accused him of this? Isn't this the longest he's had to go to court for this? You know, I don't think this is a money issue with the parents. They obviously care for their kid, and if not than sending them over to Jackson's house knowing that he was accused of this is pretty sick. The only thing we can do is wait.

 

[steph]

With all due respect~Yeah, he paid 'em off. The only thing he asked in return was they keep their mouths shut, a request which they violated. (Red light #1) Here's the inside scoop~courtesy of legendary reporter/author Domenic Dunne via Vanity Fair.

Redlight 2~ The kid's father was a frustrated dentist who desperately wanted to become a screenwriter. Guess what? He owed in arrears back child support in the amount of 75K.
It IS a $ issue~if you're in this for anything but money, they'd spit on any offer presented and not rest until Jackson was jailed.
XOXO

Didn't he pay off the last family that accused him of this? Isn't this the longest he's had to go to court for this? You know, I don't think this is a money issue with the parents. They obviously care for their kid, and if not than sending them over to Jackson's house knowing that he was accused of this is pretty sick. The only thing we can do is wait.

 

[Jimblast]

He's guilty but will be found innocent, then found guilty in civil court...

...sorry, but someone whom is not guilty wouldn't pay off another child a few years ago (or his family) millions to keep their mouths shut. OJ was guilty, Michael is guilty, and Robert Blake was guilty (my opinion shared by many others). Again, the problem is with these attorneys who pervert the legal system to get these folks off. These defense attorneys do a character assasination of any witnesses brought against the defendent. What about the character assasination of Michael you might ask? He assasinated his own character with exponentially increasing bizarre behavior.

Additionally, if you'll note, Southern California and their D.A.'s along with their police departments are bungling evidence left and right. I could care less about the freak show known as Michael Jackson and his 'out of touch' family. I care more for these kids who in my mind very likely were lured by a sexual predator into perverse acts, thereby screwing them up psychologically. Michael Jackson's actions are unhealthy at best. Parents allowing their children to sleep over there are criminally ignorant as well. In my heart I think there's way too much behaviour to point to him being guilty, but he'll get off. Then again, I really thought Scott Peterson would get off, but the jury did it's job there. I don't know much about this jury.

 

[TheFactor]

Well Steph don't you think it's a little bit funny that Jackson would offer to pay them off if he's not guilty? I mean this is the LAW were talking about here. And what does it matter if the dad wanted to become a screenwritter and was behind on his support money by 75k. Who would get the money? The dad? Or the kid and his mother? You looking at the fact that Jackson is supposedly rich now, and your looking at these people who are not. That's all, this case has nothing to do with money, their trying to find justice, that's all. Jackson's guilty, and even if he's found innocent we know the truth.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think he's been both guilty and innocent in the past in the different cases, possibily ones we don't even know about. This time I think he's guilty though but believe he will be found innocent and will get away with it. I think no matter what, it all ends here though. They say the best place to hide is right out in public, but I have a feeling we'll be hearing/seeing less of these Neverland Ranch visitations and Jackson won't be crossing himself with children anymore to the degree he has over the years. No more sleeping in beds with children, no more "Jesus Juice", no more pornography anywhere near children. If he does its just another gamble, whether he's guilty or innocent, whether they lied to get money or he really is a pedophile.

He brings these problems on himself. It WILL catch up with him sooner or later, again, whether he's guilty or innocent and will pay for it.

 

[TheFactor]

...sorry, but someone whom is not guilty wouldn't pay off another child a few years ago (or his family) millions to keep their mouths shut. OJ was guilty, Michael is guilty, and Robert Blake was guilty (my opinion shared by many others). Again, the problem is with these attorneys who pervert the legal system to get these folks off. These defense attorneys do a character assasination of any witnesses brought against the defendent. What about the character assasination of Michael you might ask? He assasinated his own character with exponentially increasing bizarre behavior.

Additionally, if you'll note, Southern California and their D.A.'s along with their police departments are bungling evidence left and right. I could care less about the freak show known as Michael Jackson and his 'out of touch' family. I care more for these kids who in my mind very likely were lured by a sexual predator into perverse acts, thereby screwing them up psychologically. Michael Jackson's actions are unhealthy at best. Parents allowing their children to sleep over there are criminally ignorant as well. In my heart I think there's way too much behaviour to point to him being guilty, but he'll get off. Then again, I really thought Scott Peterson would get off, but the jury did it's job there. I don't know much about this jury.

I agree with you 100%

...I think he's been both guilty and innocent in the past in the different cases, possibily ones we don't even know about. This time I think he's guilty though but believe he will be found innocent and will get away with it. I think no matter what, it all ends here though. They say the best place to hide is right out in public, but I have a feeling we'll be hearing/seeing less of these Neverland Ranch visitations and Jackson won't be crossing himself with children anymore to the degree he has over the years. No more sleeping in beds with children, no more "Jesus Juice", no more pornography anywhere near children. If he does its just another gamble, whether he's guilty or innocent, whether they lied to get money or he really is a pedophile.

He brings these problems on himself. It WILL catch up with him sooner or later, again, whether he's guilty or innocent and will pay for it..

I agree with you as well, but I hope he isn't found innocent here, but knowing how this government works and it's "laws" I wouldn't be too surprised.

 

[morefeatherz]

No I have never shared a bed with a little kid or a relative younger than me, and no it doesn't automatically make you a molester, but lets get a few things straight.

1. No sane parent would allow a kid to sleep over at a grown man's house.

2. There is a difference between sleeping in the same bed with a relative and sleeping in the same bed with a complete stranger, and that stranger being a little kid!

And I don't know what you expect of a parent, if my kid came home saying he slept in the same bed with little Billy's father, I'd go see little Billy's father and beat the hell out of him. Any good, and sane parent would. And to tell the truth, thats all the evidence they need to convict that guy, ok. The fact that he shared a bed with a little kid, that wasn't his own is all the evidence they need.

But I have a question for you morefeatherz, what would you do if your kid came home and told you that Jackson was sharing a bed with him? What would you think?

Ok, let's get some things straight as you put it.

1. I completely agree.

2. Michael never slept with "strangers". Any kid he has over has always been with him for long periods of time and he has spent many hours with that kid - and - that kid's family beforehand. It's not like he called up Billy whom he doesn't even know what he looks like and said "Ok Billy, come over and sleep with me tonight." It's never been that way.

3. You are completely blind to the lawful facts in this case. Your own moral judgements and preferences have obviously clouded your impartial judgement and decision making here. As I stated earlier, simply sleeping in the same bed with a kid does not make you a molester. But you have your mind made up already so why bother telling you the facts.

4. As far as your last point, my son would never sleep with Jackson or any other celebrity. He would have been taught the possible implications of such actions and the reasons behind my refusal to allow them. BUT - this is a PARENTAL ISSUE, and the kids involved here obviously have no moralistic parents at all or parents which cared for them to begin with. The parents here only see money, not moral issues and not raising their kids to be taught right and wrong on the consequences of their actions.

Your real anger in this issue is with the parents and their failure to do the parental duty handed to them. It's not about Michael being guilty of anything, lawful or not, it's about you being angry at the kid's parents for allowing the actions to begin with.

Sharing a bed with a little kid that isn't your own does NOT make you a molester. It does NOT make you a criminal. It makes you a little weird and perceived as maybe off your rocker - but does not put you behind bars unless you are PROVEN to have violated the law.

Are we straight now?

 

[TheFactor]

Ok, let's get some things straight as you put it.

1. I completely agree.

2. Michael never slept with "strangers". Any kid he has over has always been with him for long periods of time and he has spent many hours with that kid - and - that kid's family beforehand. It's not like he called up Billy whom he doesn't even know what he looks like and said "Ok Billy, come over and sleep with me tonight." It's never been that way.

3. You are completely blind to the lawful facts in this case. Your own moral judgements and preferences have obviously clouded your impartial judgement and decision making here. As I stated earlier, simply sleeping in the same bed with a kid does not make you a molester. But you have your mind made up already so why bother telling you the facts.

4. As far as your last point, my son would never sleep with Jackson or any other celebrity. He would have been taught the possible implications of such actions and the reasons behind my refusal to allow them. BUT - this is a PARENTAL ISSUE, and the kids involved here obviously have no moralistic parents at all or parents which cared for them to begin with. The parents here only see money, not moral issues and not raising their kids to be taught right and wrong on the consequences of their actions.

Your real anger in this issue is with the parents and their failure to do the parental duty handed to them. It's not about Michael being guilty of anything, lawful or not, it's about you being angry at the kid's parents for allowing the actions to begin with.

Sharing a bed with a little kid that isn't your own does NOT make you a molester. It does NOT make you a criminal. It makes you a little weird and perceived as maybe off your rocker - but does not put you behind bars unless you are PROVEN to have violated the law.

Are we straight now?

1. If you agree we shouldn't be having this discussion.

2. How many hours are we talking about here? How many hours is it considered justifiable to sleep in a bed with someone he doesn't know. I'm sorry but you'd have to spend years with someone before that is ok(even than it shouldn't be...) but I think it's funny, Jackson could use that as a defense. "Come on people! I've known the kid for three hours! And how exactly do you know that Micheal didn't call these kids up and ask them over?

3. I'm sorry but what lawful facts? Here say is all. Bringing down all the crap on formal imployees and family members is all he's doing, those arent' facts, those are mistakes.

4. Well good, at least there is a good parent in you.

Your real anger in this issue is with the parents and their failure to do the parental duty handed to them. It's not about Michael being guilty of anything, lawful or not, it's about you being angry at the kid's parents for allowing the actions to begin with.

(Yeah I'm angry at these idiots who send their kids over to a grown man's house, any parent who does this shouldn't be allowed to have kids. And I'm not mad that this is a celebrity either, any person who does this is sick.)

Sharing a bed with a little kid that isn't your own does NOT make you a molester. It does NOT make you a criminal. It makes you a little weird and perceived as maybe off your rocker - but does not put you behind bars unless you are PROVEN to have violated the law.

(Sharing a bed with a youngster doesn't make you a little weird... it makes you a complete freak! And a little off your rocker? Come on now, were talking about someone who thinks it's alright to share a bed with kids, kids! Their is nothing in the world he can say or do to make that right.)

 

[morefeatherz]

Well Steph don't you think it's a little bit funny that Jackson would offer to pay them off if he's not guilty? I mean this is the LAW were talking about here.

That's all, this case has nothing to do with money, their trying to find justice, that's all. Jackson's guilty, and even if he's found innocent we know the truth.

First off, the "pay off" is a matter of perception. In Michael's own words the reason he fronted the money was for the sake of the kid. He did not want a kid of that age dragged to court every day, being hounded by photographers and lawyers, constantly badgered and harassed and lawyers and the press and constantly being "coached" by the same. I ask you, would you want that on your child??

Secondly, the child is a lot older now and can 'fend' for himself and the parents with him. At the very outset of this case, Michael clearly and without hesitation denied any wrong doings and swore to be proven innocent in a court of law - IF he was given a fair trial in front an impartial jury that made decisions based on FACT.

Does this sound like a man running from the LAW and paying people off? Does it sound like someone who is trying to hide something?

To me it sounds like he's getting a little fed up with it all. He tried to do the right thing for the kid, in his mind, in the first supposed "pay off" as people like to put it. He was taking into account the kid's life ahead of him and was trying the avoid the kid of having to endure what he's living through now.

But people don't want to hear that. They've already labeled Michael guilty and haven't heard one word of fact in the case.

Why am I defending Michael? Because as of yet I haven't heard one legal, lawful, truthful FACT that says he's guilty of anything.

Michael has known every kid he's been involved with for years - and their family who obviously didn't disapprove - before ever sharing the same bed. These kids and their families were not "strangers."

The only thing Michael is guilty of is being judged and convicted by those who do not understand his life, his way of thinking, or his family. Being weird and often misunderstood does not make you a criminal.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

The hard thing in finding out or deciding whether Michael Jackson is innocent or guilty is that his mindset and actions themselves seem to border on complete, child-like innocence, and the calculating perversions of a pedophile who plays it safe and knows what he's doing. Its a very fine line thats been so blurred by different factors over the years.

He definitely has a Peter Pan complex, and approaching this from a psychological standpoint is just as important as any shred of evidence. I think what hurts him though, case wise, is that he has a fractured past and family history. Theres no way to say that this isn't all being manifested in his Peter Pan complex, and through that he is abusing these children both mentally and physically.

I believe Jackson BELIEVES whatever he has done with these children is ok even if it may not be in reality. I don't think he has any guilt for anything, therefore, because he sees his actions as clean, pure and just. What we would call sick, disturbing and unnecessary he sees as child-bonding.

Its no crime to LOVE children no matter what your age. Its what you do with that love that matters. I think mentally, he's twisted and introverted, selfish, delusional and immature when he's with children. He seems to make bad personal and professional decisions as well and isn't in control of his own fianances. He lives beyond his means and seems to be like a child whose allowance has been cut off.

I can't take him seriously as a mature adult enough to say he has been innocent every time or is now. I do however think he knows how to make the best out of a bad situation, whether its from the experience of past cases or because he really is guilty and simply finds loopholes everytime.

 

[TheFactor]

First off, the "pay off" is a matter of perception. In Michael's own words the reason he fronted the money was for the sake of the kid. He did not want a kid of that age dragged to court every day, being hounded by photographers and lawyers, constantly badgered and harassed and lawyers and the press and constantly being "coached" by the same. I ask you, would you want that on your child??

Secondly, the child is a lot older now and can 'fend' for himself and the parents with him. At the very outset of this case, Michael clearly and without hesistation denied any wrong doings and swore to be proven innocent in a court of law - IF he was given a fair trial in front an impartial jury that made decisions based on FACT.

Does this sound like a man running from the LAW and paying people off? Does it sound like someone who is trying to hide something?

Yes it does. I could burn down an abortion clinic, kill every atheist I see, and say it's for the good of my people and God, but it doesn't make it true. It's a copout. Anyways... I really don't know why you grabbed my topic when someone basically said the same thing I did, one post above mine. Are you trying to convince me of something, or yourself? Anwyways... I'm tired of defending my point of view, I'm sorry you cannot except it. Anyways I'm going to make sure I don't get any more posts about this, I'm sick of it already.

Hopfull Jackson gets what he deserves.

 

[steph]

ok, you're probably not reading anymore but I love a friendly debate so I'm going to answer your questions...

Well Steph don't you think it's a little bit funny that Jackson would offer to pay them off if he's not guilty?"

No I do not. The fact that he's so reclusive makes him an ideal candidate for this type of payoff scam. Plus, he can afford it, or at least he could then. No one knows but his accountant what his financial status is now.


"And what does it matter if the dad wanted to become a screenwritter and was behind on his support money by 75k."

It goes to motivation and character, in this case, lack of it. Look, these people agreed to never discuss this. They took their money and bailed on their agreement~scumbags.

"Who would get the money? The dad? Or the kid and his mother?"

Obviously it SHOULD go in trust for the child. Doesn't mean it did~look at McCauley Culkin and other kids robbed by their own parents. Happens all the time.

"That's all, this case has nothing to do with money, their trying to find justice,"

Again, I respectfully disagree. And I repeat, if this were my child, you couldn't get the HILTON fortune to pay me off to go away. I'd want him dead or in prison, near guys who make him drop a lot of soap.

(Hops off soapbox...)
XOXO

 

[kis123]

Again, I respectfully disagree. And I repeat, if this were my child, you couldn't get the HILTON fortune to pay me off to go away. I'd want him dead or in prison, near guys who make him drop a lot of soap.

(Hops off soapbox...)
XOXO

As a parent of a son, I couldn't agree more with this statement. I personally think these parental pimps used their child to blackmail Jackson for a quick payoff. When it didn't work, they had to follow through with their "child molestation allegations." I guarantee no amount of money would've shut me up if someone violated my son. Actually, you would be watching my trial on Court TV because I'd be up on homicide charges!!!

I know Jackson has serious problems. If anyone can bring a witness with solid credibility that can testify against him, I have to say at this point-just let him go. But make sure he gets therapy until he gets better. He's a really sick guy who's been pimped by his own family. Why make him better if you can take advantage of him while sick?

That's why I think this whole thing is a bunch of horse hockey! A real parent may not have waited for a trial to get justice.

 

[goddess_nemesis]

Originally posted by MTP Jeff
I think he's guilty but will be found innocent in the trial.

MTP Jeff, I thinking the opposite of you. I think he's innocent, but will be found guilty. With 8 women, 4 men on the jury with most of them having families and young children, I think they'll find him guilty.

 

[TickledToDeath]

GUILTY!

 

[natural tickler]

Very guilty

They're gonna nail him this time, because when the tried back in 93' he got away with with payoffs, and the prosecutors are determined to not let him slip away this time. I just hope he doesn't get put in General population, because we all know what that means, he'll be everyone's girlfriend.....

 

[drew70]

I hope he counter-sues after he's found innocent.

 

[ticklingfeet4fu]

Now this is to those that say he is not guilty. Why in an interview with Mike Wallace did Michael Jackson say there was nothing wrong with a 41 year old man sleeping with an a 11 year old boy? Please explain that. Those words came from Michael Jackson's mouth. Why in the same interview is he holding an 11 year old boy's hand? That was not his child. One more question to think about. If you need a babysitter and Michael Jackson is your next door neighbor are you going to ask him to watch your 8 year old boy for a few hours? If this was your child, how would you feel toward Michael Jackson? It is something to think about. Notice that I have not said he is guilty or innocent in this thread. I would like to get your thoughts and opinions on these questions. I have a 12 year old boy btw and if it were my child? Jackson would not be on trial. I would be. I would be on trial for murder though.

 

[TickledToDeath]

Also, why would he pay 23 million dollars to to a family to keep them quiet, if he was innocent the first time around?