A straw poll on Micheal Jackson

In My Humble Opinion
1

So 99% of the people on the planet who have heard his name acknowledge he is odd/different/not-all there, but is he guilty?

Let the jury of the Straight Dope “decide”.

I will start. I’m fairly convinced he is a sad man rather then a bad man.

Based on what I have heard on the news so far, I say innocent …yet still ODD.

I could say why I feel that way, but why bother. Opinions are like arseholes and all that.

I’m just curious about the general feeling.

2

That’s exactly the way I feel. Very weird guy – why does he feel the need to do all those things? – but I don’t know if he’s guilty of this particular crime.

3

I’d have to vote “not guilty.” The kid told his school’s dean that Jackson didn’t do anything. Sure, he could have been lying then, but how can I believe him beyond a reasonable doubt? Plus, didn’t his family file a bogus lawsuit against some department store? I have a real problem with the quality of the witnesses.

He’s definitely a disturbed person, however. He doesn’t have a normal person’s sensibilities and limitations, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a child molester. Frankly, if they dropped the charges against Jackson, on the condition that he never again allowed any children into his home other than his own, then I’d say that justice had been done.

4

Yeah I too go for really, really, REALLY weird but viscerally not guilty.

The thing I have trouble with is that he is so openly flaky, virtually boasts of behaviour that makes people go “ewww”, has almost unlimited access to kids but has only been subject to 2 ultimately fairly dubious accusations. Your average really creepy 60 year old suburban paedophile is usually guilty of more.

I know that he exhibits lots of text book indicators of being a paedophile but they are only indicative. At a dinner party I held years ago a Child Protection worker with the Department of Community Services interpreted one of my son’s drawings to show that he was clearly being molested. He then got the child to explain what everything in the drawing really was - I remember that the gigantic penis was actually the clothesline we had decorated for his birthday party.

5

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty… from what I have read, he exhibits many of the classic traits of a child molester.
So, IMHO only, he is guilty.
Lists of common traits, From here:

http://www.survivors-and-friends.org/articles/Profile.asp

*  Have been abused as children themselves
* Be Sexually attracted to children (most can't or won't resist these urges)
* Find positions where children are available (leader of children's clubs, ministries, etc., coaches, camp counselors & chaperones, daycare centers, school positions, offers to babysit for friends & family, etc.)
* Seem to love children, children seem drawn to person
* Seek out women with children (or friends with children)
* Spend a lot of time with a child (not their own)
* Seem rigid, moral, a pillar of the community (too often accusations of abuse have not been believed because the person seemed to be too good, too outstanding to do such a thing
* Groom a child--create a special bond (this may involve giving child gifts, money, or even alcohol, or other 'forbidden' things that make it appear he is a special friend and creates atmosphere for secret keeping. Could also include playfully touching, tickling, etc., but moves toward inappropriate touch)
* Be an authoritarian or timid and unassertive
* Frequent places like video arcades
* Be addicted to child pornography
* Be uncomfortable in adult relationships (i.e., doesn't relate well, insecure)
* Have symptoms and after-effects of a survivor
* Deny or rationalize their behavior
* Be Manipulative
* Befriend single mothers in order to get to the children. They prey on the desperation of the woman who has no support system. They often sleep with the mother
* "Roughhouse" with children--tickling, slapping buttocks, etc.--and use this playful guise when they are in fact touching inappropriately
* Calling young teenage girls "sexy" or making other sexually suggestive comments

And here:

http://www.mako.org.au/whoabuseschild.html

According to most studies, offenders start molesting children before they are 30 years old; therefore, it is not just the “dirty old man” that your child should be cautious of.

Paedophiles are usually not prosecuted or convicted.

There is increasing evidence to suggest that many incestuous fathers are abusing children outside the home at the same time they are having sexual relations with their own children and with wives.

Both incestuous and non-incestuous paedophiles are similarly aroused by children.

Sexual abuse involves sexual urges, sexual fantasies involving children, and sexual arousal by children as sexual objects.

There is no indication that any specific psychological profile is useful in describing who is likely to abuse children sexually.

About two-thirds of paedophiles are attracted to children of the opposite sex.

Based on evidence from criminal court records, paedophiles usually know the children that they abuse. Most paedophiles resort to deception rather than force. Although much is known about paedophilia, paedophiles themselves are difficult to treat and recidivism rates are high.

It is rare that a molester will stop after one victim or one incident. Many molesters abuse large numbers of children" Some studies show averages between 50 and 100 victims per offender.

Very few offenders (less than 5%) are diagnosed as being mentally challenged or psychotic.

Many child abusers have trouble dealing with other adults. Some offenders have never had a “normal” male/female relationship, even though they may be married.

Paedophiles are not necessarily easy to pick out. They may have the appearance of respectability and may hold positions of authority.

6

Filthy paedo - string him up :mad:

7

What Diceman said. The witnesses, particularly the accuser’s brother, aren’t reliable enough to safely find him guilty. He’s more mad than bad. 20 years in jail wouldn’t be justice.

8

Guilty, mainly because of this.

9

Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think the defense team has given up on defending against the wine to children charge. We have photos of him hanging a kid outside a balcony. That is child endangerment. We have the children’s fingerprints on pornographic magazines.

We have beyond a doubt evidence of reckless behavior toward children. This adds weight to the (flawed) eyewitness testimony.

He is guilty.

10

There’s ten charges–do we have to find him guilty of all of them?

I think he’s guilty of all the charges except the kidnapping–there’s too many inconsistencies in that one. He’s a pedophile and he fooled around with that kid. That’s wrong even if the kid’s family has a grifter in it and the kid can’t remember every single detail.

11

This show a misunderstanding of the US legal system. I have never been involved in a criminal trial, either state court of military court martial where the panel had an option of finding anyone innocent. The jury starts with a presumption of innocence and it is the sole burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The only verdicts in a criminal trial are guilty or not guilty. Please note:

not guilty != innocent

I’ll be suprised if the jury finds MJ guilty, I just think the prosecution case is too shaky.

What I think… I defy anyone to assert that MJ isn’t completely fucked up. I think he’s stupid and has bad judgement becaued of his isolation from the real world. I think that many of the things he admits to are inappropriate and I don’t have a hard time believing that he has done things that are outright child molestation but so far no one has proven that to me yet.

12

Guilty.

I’m not sure they’ll prove it in this case unless they bring in the two prior boys* who settled out of court. If that happens, even if the evidence seems shaky in this case, he may go down.

*Almost no one seems to remember that there was a second case Jackson settled for 2-3 mil in 96 or so. The incident involved the son of a former employee of Neverland.

13

Found guilty? I don’t think so.

Is guilty? I really don’t know. I think that he’s just weird enough to believe that there is nothing inappropriate – and something loving and special – about sharing your bed with children and that he understands that touching children is wrong. This family sure sounds like the type that would take advantage of his weirdness, though.

14

I was going to post a topic which put the reader in front of MJ with a loaded, cocked, .357 in their hand, finger on trigger, and the end of the barrell resting comfortably on the tip of the little freaks plastic nose.

To pull or not pull was going to be the subject/question.

But, your post will suffice.

Guilty!

15

I’d like to say that I am torn between him been a target of gold diggers who allow their children to be left alone with an adult…overnight…and the kid sleeps in this man’s bed… is just way to fcuking creepy.

And a man…known entertainer with lotsa people and money ( what there is of it now.) who has kids spend the night and has in the past paid off parents for their silence.

Dunno. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

If he were an Average Joe, he’d be doing time by now. I think he has gotten away with it all these years because of his celebrity, money and the magnetic pull he has on people, despite his current continuing freakishness.

Really, it is a recipe for disaster no matter how you look at it and of it all, these kids are the ones who are losing out.

If there were a way to prove beyond a doubt of his guilt ( I am not following the case.) I would like to see a similar sentance for the parents who allow their children to spend the night at a near strangers house…

16

I think he did it but will get off, not because he’s Michael Jackson but because his accusers are dishonest scumbags. From what I’ve read and heard I’d have already made up my mind that he’s innocent for the purposes of conviction, but that doesn’t mean that I think he didn’t do it. I just couldn’t justify putting him away for it on the word of a bunch of grifters.

17

He will be found not guilty, but I think he is guilty. For whatever that is worth.

18

I agree, I don’t know for certain if he’s guilty, not having personally witnessed him abusing anyone, but he has certainly done enough wierd behaviour and there is certainly enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

I suspect that the poor quality of his accusers may enable him to get away with it, whether or not he is guilty.

As a parent myself I fail to understand why anyone would let their children stay with him in light of past events. That combined with his dangling child over balcony incident make me think that guilt or not his sanity has to be questioned.

Could not agree more. If any one else with less money had doen half the things he’s done (publicly, not assuming guilt) they would have been either sectioned and commited or had their children taken away by social services.

19

He’s barking mad and as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of puppy poo.

Hopefully he’ll get the standard prison response to nonces.

20

Assuming that despite the way he looks and acts, MJ still is not stupid–I would be worried that he specifically chooses to indulge with children who have families that would appear unreliable in court. Certainly from what I know of confirmed “predators” of children, they know which children are safer to approach and how to approach them based on their own predatory instincts and simple real-life logic distorted for a perverted cause. As one example of this, showing children pornography previous to further advances is a common act of pedophiles–even though they might not yet have come into contact with further pedophiles to elicit advice on “good technique.” That this specific topic came up in the MJ case might indeed be the police implanting it in the child’s head–but I personally would have to doubt such specific acts could accidentally get implanted or that the police would purposely plant false information. (I mean if you’re going to specifically plant evidence, you might as well plant a smoking gun.)

In short, I am currently voting on guilty as hell, am still curious about what evidence actually exists as I am willing to change my vote, and am hoping that whatever evidence is presented will be enough to allow for a decisive victory for one side that seems reasonable and not a Robert Blakeish, “Yeah, he probably did or was involved with it happening, but there just isn’t enough evidence to prove it”-type thing.