You mean like O.J.?
What scares me if he is guilty, his perverse sense of how things work in society, and how he thinks he is somehow above all that. Those clips of him riding the rollercoaster and ferris wheel with children will be much more disgusting if he actually did molest that child.
I think he’s guilty. “Innocent until proven guilty” works in the courts, but doesn’t preside over my personal opinion. I can feel any way I want to about it without Big Brother telling me how to think 
I’ve followed the case loosely, and the older case with the other child shocked me quite a bit. I don’t have any cites handy (I’ll keep half an eye open, but it’s old news) so you might just have to take my memory for it. The family of the other boy was pressured into taking the money by some hired goons of MJs, and I’ve read that he did the same thing with this family. (What was that guy’s name? Pellicano? Bah.)
I don’t think that the family is perfect, either. But I do think that much of what they did in the past is going to be as blown up and distorted as possible, naturally (as MJs side will be, as well). Maybe the mother really did get harrassed/molested by the JC Penney security guards. JC Penney did, after all, settle. I know very little about the law, but couldn’t such a big company crush her like a bug if she were lying? I’d want to keep my repuation as clean as possible if I were JC Penney, but it might be just me. Of course, now that she’s in the spotlight, there will be lots of cries of fraud, etc.
Another thing: I don’t think she’s the smartest cookie, but should the parents be held responsible when their child is molested? The only reason I ask, is because if this was a “great, saintly” guy, who had parties for kids at his house and the whole world knows about it, and you were led to believe that your child was tucked away safely in a guest room, and you really, truly believed with all of your (possibly naive) heart that this man was innocent, and that him being a molestor was just vicious rumours, should you be held to blame? If your child is molested at a friend’s house, should you take some of the blame, even though you trusted your friend? I understand there are many nuances and things that just don’t apply to a regular person in this case, but I’m trying really hard to see things from the mother’s POV, if she is indeed telling the truth.
Both sides seem fishy, but MJ is the fishiest, to me. Doesn’t he have a friend in the world who could have told him, after the last incident, “Hey, Mike, maybe you want to lay off those sleepovers with the kids, maybe? You know, we all know it’s very innocent and fun, but you’re just asking for another lawsuit if you keep this up, y’know?”
And of course, inside his house with all the painting of the nude boys worshipping him, telling the world that it’s okay to sleep with unrelated children (which, I think, is a very dangerous suggestion, innocent or not - why not just open the door for the pedophiles to walk in? “Michael says it’s okay”, they say. Ugh.) Then there’s the wine he himself drinks in soda cans, which he supposedly gave to the kids and called it "Jesus Juice "…
There’s just too much weirdness in there, for me, to believe he’s innocent.
He has not yet been proven guilty and therefore I will continue to consider him to be innocent.
I also think he is a sad pathetic crazy man, but that is not against the law.
A-yup.
I recommend The Simpson Trial In Black and White for an interesting race-based compare-and-contrast analysis of the trial.
From what I recall, the reason that this accusation has gone to trial is that a law was passed (after he settled with his first accusor) that requires therapists to report incidents of child molestation. There might also be some requirement that they must be investigated and taken to trial if there is evidence to support the accusation. In the current case I believe it was a therapist who reported the molestation.
I don’t believe they would be taking him to trial if they didn’t have more evidence than just the kids word. Yeah, I think he is guilty. There’s lots of adults who had rough childhoods that grew up somewhat normal. The whole bit about him surrounding himself with kids and kid activities because he didn’t have much of a childhood doesn’t seem to explain enough. He just fits the profile of a pedofile.
Do I BELIEVE Michael Jackson is innocent? No… but I remain open to the possibility that he’s not a child molester.
Mind you, I don’t think there’s any plausible argument for Michael Jackson as normal, healthy adult. He’s definitely a weird dude, and he definitely has all kinds of mental and emotional issues. But he’s not NECESSARILY a child molester… and even if he is, he hasn’t necessarily molested any particular child whose family is pressing charges.
I think there are two possibilities:
A) Jackson is a pedophile.
B) Jackson is a screwed up individual, partly because of his unusual upbringing, and on some level is still a little kid who likes having sleepovers and parties with his little friends.
If the second scenario is correct, Jackson is STILL far from sane or healthy. He’d be pathetic at best and a potential danger, at worst. But he wouldn’t belong in prison.
I lean toward theory A, but am still open to B.
I’m in no position to judge, and neither are most of y’all. While I haven’t been closely following the case, I’ve seen some material, like the bit that The Smoking Gun put out about a week ago, that paints a poor picture of Mr. Jackson.
But that’s all Internet material, which most of us have learned by now is not particularly reliable. It’s not the sworn testimony and evidence the jury will hear and see. We’ll have to abide by their judgement.
Ringo, ya pretty much pegged it. We don’t have access to any of the evidence presented so we can’t really begin to know the answer.
What a sorry state we’d be in if everyone convicted the accused from what they heard on TV. We’d never fill a jury.
And it’s presumed innocent, until proven guilty.
I’m not a fan of his music, and I think he’s the strangest man on the planet. However, he deserves a shot at a fair trial. I haven’t seen the evidence in a courtroom, and you haven’t either.
Loopydude, put that O.J. stuff back in your pocket. The police and the crime lab fouled their own nest on that one. The only similarity to this case is that the defendants were both born black.
There are some freaktards out there claiming that they will stake their lives on MJ’s innocence. Literally. :::shudder::: One person said, “Well, if you have to make good on that bet, just don’t park your SUV on any train tracks!”
Based on hearsay, publicity, public appearances and past accusations, I think he is gulity of being a really fucked up individual.
As to actual criminal intent, I’d have to see the evidence. It is entirely possible that he is so damaged that he is unable to tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate social behavior. Also the motives of the parents of the alleged victims should be closely examined. Would you let your child spend the night with an alleged pedophile? Why?
He may have only the best of intentions but Michael Jackson should not be left alone with any child. Ever.
Absolutely, and when I hear the name Fuhrman, I want to puke. But if OJ Simpson didn’t kill Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman I will eat this keyboard. At any rate, we have the rather odd duality of a defendant who is “innocent” of the murders, but “responsible” for their deaths, according to the civil suit.
As for similarities? They’re both big stars accused of heinous acts, and no sane person believes their celebrity status won’t have an impact on the court. Such cases are interesting trials of our criminal justice system itself, and, IMO, reveal its most disturbing liabilites.
I think he’s guilty of some kind of wrong doing, at the least child endangerment. I thoguht I heard that they found pornographic materials and alcohol containers that had both Jacko’s and the boy’s fingerprints on them. If so, then that right there is a crime. Even if you aargue that the alcohol container was empty when the kid touched it, there’s still the porno.
I don’t think he’s innocent, and I don’t think he’s a child at heart, either. A lot of people who have met him say the child-like behavior act is just that, an act. Did you know he has a normal voice? That whispery tone he uses is another part of his act. I think he’s dangerous, manipulative, and very well aware of what he’s doing.
From another messageboard:
Regarding “judging”:
We live in a free country, and we have the right to think and feel what we want. We’re not on the jury, we’ll never be on the jury. We were asked what we thought on a public message board, in a forum called “In My Humble Opinion”. Our opinions are not going to hang the man, or the family. If they do, then hey, by all means, I retract my opinion.
But until that day comes, I will say what I think. *Of course * he’s presumed innocent until proven guilty. But I can think whatever I want, and if someone asks my opinion, I can give it. If I found myself on any jury, I’d have to sit and listen to cold hard facts, and I would keep my opinion set aside. But that’s not the case.
We were asked our opinions, based on what we have heard. Not much is known. But our opinions will not hang anyone. If we were out there rallying around Neverland, screaming for blood, lynching the man, okay, that’s too far. To state how we feel on a message board? Who are we hurting?