The Paranormal/Current Events Michael Jackson Poll

[DivaLasVegas]

You were drinking a lot of beer and playing poker, badly, with me. At 2:00 am, you put your pair of sixes and the 812 euros that you had left against my full house. When you saw my cards, you grabbed your money and your coat and ran.

If you wire me the money today, I'll tell my cousin Raymond (The Wolf) he doesn't have to go visit you.

Oh thank you, thank you kind Sir *g*

I just remembered waking up on Wednesday morning with a headache and the ace of clubs stuck on to my forearm with cellotape, hihihi

If Raymond visits, tell him to bring cake

 

[richardm]

I believe he is guilty because of the huge pay off for Jordy Chandler.
If nothing happened i would have never ever paid any money to some sceeming, lying little boy and his family.
I would have fought tooth and nail to proof my innocence in court.

On the other hand, though, Jackson is (paradoxically) painfully shy when it comes to his private life. So perhaps he thought it was worth any amount of money to avoid coming under the intense and intimate scrutiny he's now facing.

Also, when you place the previous huge payout made to an accuser next to the fact that this current family has a history of making accusations to try to get money out of people - doesn't that make you go "Hmm" just a little bit?

 

[Bjorn]

Also, when you place the previous huge payout made to an accuser next to the fact that this current family has a history of making accusations to try to get money out of people - doesn't that make you go "Hmm" just a little bit?

Yes it does.

On the other hand, when you place the previous huge payout made to an accuser next to the fact that the accused, a few years later and with a new "boyfriend", participated in an interview where he told us how "wonderful" and "natural" it was for him to sleep in the same bed as young boys - doesn't that make you go "Hmm" just a little bit?

 

[DivaLasVegas]

On the other hand, though, Jackson is (paradoxically) painfully shy when it comes to his private life. So perhaps he thought it was worth any amount of money to avoid coming under the intense and intimate scrutiny he's now facing.

Also, when you place the previous huge payout made to an accuser next to the fact that this current family has a history of making accusations to try to get money out of people - doesn't that make you go "Hmm" just a little bit?

There are a lot of things that make me go hmm.

You are right about MJ being shy and very private ( that also makes me go hmm ), but i also dont know what would make a mother go crazy with worry for the health of her boy and i also dont know who i would hit up for support and money if i had been in the same situation.

I just go with my gut feeling here...... and i believe him to be guilty of sexual abuse.

But i also believe that there is another person to have at least limited blame and that one should answer questions about childabuse. MJ`s father.
I know that physical abuse in childhood does not excuse anything ( otherwise i would be a mad axe murderess) but i think it could have a lot to do with MJ`s state of mind.

I still dont understand or can comprehend that MJ did not stop his practice of "sleeping" with little boys after the last fiasco.
It makes me angry that he thinks there is nothing wrong with it and i believe him to be a little crazy because he just doesn`t get it.
But i also believe that Childabusers are just as addicted as drugaddicts and they may know that it is wrong, but they just can not stop.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I still dont understand or can comprehend that MJ did not stop his practice of "sleeping" with little boys after the last fiasco.

I agree, it's utterly insane. But we must also bear in mind this makes him vulnerable to false accusations of abuse. I honestly think he's innocent, but he's at least in part brought this on himself with some recklessly stupid behaviour.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Just scanned the thread but I think you missed one possibility.

 

[gnome]

I believe he is guilty because of the huge pay off for Jordy Chandler.
If nothing happened i would have never ever paid any money to some sceeming, lying little boy and his family.
I would have fought tooth and nail to proof my innocence in court.

I believe he is guilty with all my heart. But heck...i also believed OJ guilty with all my heart, but who cares ?

I believe it's likely enough that in the original case MJ was innocent (of molestation) and made an unwise legal decision. At least, likely enough that I don't physically suffer over the idea that he might have gotten away with molestation.

I think we'll know more this time around since there's an actual trial.

Originally posted by richardm
According to the DA, molestation means:

"arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions or sexual desires of" the offender or a child under age 14. Each charge carries a penalty of three to eight years in prison.

The use of the word "or" logically indicates that any of those are sufficient for a charge. If simply 'appealing to' the sexual desires of a child under 14 is molestation, I was molested many times before I was 14. I think I particularly could nail several TV and movie personalities with this, starting with Heather Lagenkamp.

I think this needs rewording.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think he'll be convicted of the lesser alcohol thing.

However, I have absolutely no doubt he molested that kid, and the one 10 years ago as well.

 

[gnome]

I think he'll be convicted of the lesser alcohol thing.

However, I have absolutely no doubt he molested that kid, and the one 10 years ago as well.

I'm just trying to figure out how you can have absolutely no doubt without evidence most of us don't have.

Are you saying you take it on faith?

It's fair if you've drawn a solid conclusion, I just have beef with the term "absolutely".

 

[BPSCG]

Interesting. I see a lot of people here saying they think he's guilty, that he's probably guilty, etc.

Anyone thinking he's probably guilty should acquit, unless you think the probability is 99.9% or somesuch.

This isn't the original poll question, but I'd be interested to hear who here has concluded he is guilty of something, beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to, "I think he probably molested the kid"?

 

[Rob Lister]

Interesting. I see a lot of people here saying they think he's guilty, that he's probably guilty, etc.

Anyone thinking he's probably guilty should acquit, unless you think the probability is 99.9% or somesuch.

This isn't the original poll question, but I'd be interested to hear who here has concluded he is guilty of something, beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to, "I think he probably molested the kid"?

I don't think that is possible for anyone except those currently sitting on the Jury. The degree of conviction, "beyond a reasonable doubt" only has meaning in the context of the trial. You can't even assign a number to it, like 99.9%, in a meaningful way. What does the .1% mean?

 

[Ed]

Interesting. I see a lot of people here saying they think he's guilty, that he's probably guilty, etc.

Anyone thinking he's probably guilty should acquit, unless you think the probability is 99.9% or somesuch.

This isn't the original poll question, but I'd be interested to hear who here has concluded he is guilty of something, beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to, "I think he probably molested the kid"?

I really have no doubt in my mind that the guy is a pedophile. That said, knowing what I know now, there is no way I could convict him. It just don't work that way.

 

[DivaLasVegas]

I really have no doubt in my mind that the guy is a pedophile. That said, knowing what I know now, there is no way I could convict him. It just don't work that way.

I have no doubt in my mind either and sorry, but i would and could convict him BECAUSE i have no doubt in my mind.

I know the law says * beyond a reasonable doubt* so how could i not convict him if i had no doubt *headscratch*

 

[Rob Lister]

I have no doubt in my mind either and sorry, but i would and could convict him BECAUSE i have no doubt in my mind.

I know the law says * beyond a reasonable doubt* so how could i not convict him if i had no doubt *headscratch*

Because he isn't being tried for being a pediphile. He's being tried for the crime of molesting a single young boy. He either did it (guilty) or he didn't (not guilty).

I think he did it. I think he's guilty of this crime. But my opinion doesn't matter as it relates to the trial.

 

[DivaLasVegas]

Because he isn't being tried for being a pediphile. He's being tried for the crime of molesting a single young boy. He either did it (guilty) or he didn't (not guilty).

I think he did it. I think he's guilty of this crime. But my opinion doesn't matter as it relates to the trial.

Hi

to my mind there is no difference if someone *molests* a single young boy or if he is a *pedophile* to me it is the same thing.

But if there is a difference he would have my *guilty* vote on both counts.

 

[Rob Lister]

Hi

to my mind there is no difference if someone *molests* a single young boy or if he is a *pedophile* to me it is the same thing.

But if there is a difference he would have my *guilty* vote on both counts.

Yes, but suppose the evidence convinced you, in spite of your preconceived perceptions (which in theory would disqualify you a being on the jury) that he was not guilty of this particular act with this particular person. Also suppose that the same evidence that proved he was not guilty of this particular act with this particular person proves the he is guilty of another act on another young boy; MJ testifies and states that he couldn't have molested this young boy that night because he was busy molesting another young boy fifty miles away, for example, and he proves it with a video tape.

How do you find; guilty or not?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Anyone thinking he's probably guilty should acquit, unless you think the probability is 99.9% or somesuch.

I couldn't agree more, but remember, the trial's not over yet. Qualifiers such as 'probably' are required at this stage, as further evidence could cause the poster to revise those opinions.

 

[BPSCG]

Michael Jackson Rub 'n' Play...

 

[DivaLasVegas]

Yes, but suppose the evidence convinced you, in spite of your preconceived perceptions (which in theory would disqualify you a being on the jury) that he was not guilty of this particular act with this particular person. Also suppose that the same evidence that proved he was not guilty of this particular act with this particular person proves the he is guilty of another act on another young boy; MJ testifies and states that he couldn't have molested this young boy that night because he was busy molesting another young boy fifty miles away, for example, and he proves it with a video tape.

How do you find; guilty or not?

Hihi okayyyyyy, IF he had a videotape to proof he was busy molesting another poor boy, THEN i would gladly find him not guilty of this crime because i would know his ass would rot in jail for a heck of a long time anyway.

BUT in this case i dont think it is gonna happen *shame*

Of course i would be disqualified for this jury because i believe he is guilty and my belief would taint my *objectivity*. His advocate could tell me anything, could try to discredit all he wanted and i would still find him guilty.

But do you really believe that none of these people on the jury have some kind of feeling that he really is guilty ? Most people still think * no smoke without fire*.
I dont think there is a person out there who does`nt have there own opinion in this case.
I think at least some tried to hide there real opinion to get on the jury.
I have read the jury questionaires and i had to laugh at some of the answers, like * i have not EVER heard anything about MJ having a penchant for little boys* i find that very difficult to believe.

Also i really believe that the verdict in this case hangs on the opinion the jury has formed before the trial started. Some will be avid MJ Fans ( even though they may not have said so) and it will not matter to them what anyone says, to them he is innocent, he will always be innocent and even if he was caught with his hands down a boys pants, he was tricked and he is still innocent.

And the people here should know for sure that those kind of people exist. ;-)

I know that`s not the point of a jury trial and people should try to be objective and only listen to the evidence.
I still dont believe that this is quiet possible. We are only human and like i said, i believed he was guilty the last time and since he paid an enormous amount of money to get out of a trial, he has shot himself in his own butt in my opinion.

 

[Bjorn]

Hihi okayyyyyy, IF he had a videotape to proof he was busy molesting another poor boy, THEN i would gladly find him not guilty of this crime because i would know his ass would rot in jail for a heck of a long time anyway.

Shouldn't that rather be "because he was not guilty"?

If the videotape showed him somewhere else that day/night, doing something innocent, would you find him guilty to make sure his ass would rot in jail? Hopefully I misinterpreted?