Do you think Michael Jackson will be found guilty?

[zzyzzx]

Not to be confused with the poll where I asked if you thought he was a pedophile. Will he be found guilty of something in his latest trial?

[shelbyGT]

Probably not, too much that went his way.

Do I think he's a freak?

YES

[Bodyslide]

He will be found not guilty. Too much doubt in all the info given to the jury.

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

Not guilty, I think that kid's mother is a golddigger.

[AlecWest]

The defense did a good job of introducing "reasonable doubts" into evidence. He'll be found not guilty ... again. Jackson's punishment, if anything, will be obscurity. After all the remaining fan hoopla is just a memory, things will go back to the way they were ... with his album sales continuing on a downward spiral. If I was a betting man, I'd predict a suicide within the next 10 years.

[pbhalerao]

I think that he is guilty but he will be found "not guilty". There is not enough evidence and too much doubt on the arguments/facts presented by the presecution.

[drjtech]

I too think that he is guilty, but he won't be found guilty.

I also think his mother is a golddigger, but that doesn't give a freak pedophile like Michael Jackson the right to abuse her kids.

I also think that her kids are rotten brats, but that doesn't give a child molester like Michael Jackson the green light to molest them with impunity.

Michael sure could sing and dance, though.

-drj

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I really think he is innocent.
I just can't picture a guy like him, that does so much for the children in the world, suddenly becoming a menace to them.
Does he have problems?, yes, he has his own problems, he's been having problems since his youth days accepting who he really is, that's why so many surgeries and everything, but I think that's a different issue of his personality.
Besides, if there was a single piece of concrete evidence, that should decide it, but all the people that accused him of something happens to be of an obscure background, or have debt problems, or have been convicted of a felony.
The ammount of money he has is a very powerful temptation to these kind of people, they see a golden oportunity to make big bucks because this situation is in a very gray area; just think about it:
1.- In an accusation of this kind there's almost never tangible proof, just my word against your word. And for a celebrity, just to think to be involved in a scandal like this should be like hell, therefore, the quickest way out of the situation is a monetary settlement, it doesn't matter if you're innocent, the main point is to avoid the scandal.
Just think about Fight Club, when Edward Norton threatened his boss of accusing him of sexual harrasment... what can you do in a situation like that?, I know you're innocent, but think about the scandal... how many people would think you are really innocent?, and if you were declared innocent in a court of law... just think about the repercussions in your life, in your work... that will haunt you forever.
2.- Once is enough. Michael should have stopped in the first scandal he had, but (it's my point of view) since he felt that he did nothing wrong, he continued to live just like nothing happened, and he ended facing this golddigger that seized the moment in order to squeeze him. That's why I think he decided to go to trial instead of giving her money, because he realized that if he do it again now, he will have to do it his whole life because there will be many "mom's" that will know that the system works... and they will apply it. That's why I think he decided to confront her, because he IS innocent.

One point aside, IMHO you (generally speaking) shouldn't call him yet a pedophile, those are big and heavy words... are you certain for fact that he actually commited those crimes?. The last time I read it, it said: Innocent until proven guilty, not backwards.

And to finish, again in my opinion:
If somebody EVER touch one of my two daughters in a way not meant to be, I would want them burned alive, I wouldn't want "monetary compensation" from them. That's just a nice way to say "nothing happened here, take your money and STFU".

This is my .02

...Now, I'm not perfect and maybe he is guilty... but it is not my place nor my task to judge him. I'm just inclined to think that he is not.

[Supreme2k]

As many of his "victims" (with nothing to gain) have come out and refuted the allegations (ie. maid/gardener/whatever:"He fondled McCauly!" McCauly:"Uh, no he didn't."), I'd have to say Not Guilty.

I agree with M_D about the reprocussions of the mere accusations. Just look at drjtech's reaction.
A friend of mine (at the urging of his sister-in-law) used to give piggy-back rides to his 9yr neice. After the neice confesses one day that she was only doing it so she could dry-hump his back, the s-i-l calls the cops. Though no arrest was made and the case was thrown out (one in a million smart judge:"ma'am, you may want to caution your daughter against humping any old random object."), a third of the family sided with her and treat him like a pedophile.

[AlecWest]

I think he's guilty and that his attorneys have done a good job of scaring the beejeezuz out of accusers and their families. Seriously, I wouldn't put it past Jackson's lawyers (and his goon security squad) to quietly threaten retaliation against those who rock Michael's boat. So, people talk in glowing terms. But, whether he's guilty on this particular charge or not, one thing is certain. Any grown man who thinks it's "sweet" to sleep with little boys and dangles his own baby from a 2nd floor balcony is two or three slices short of a loaf ... and it saddens me to think that anyone would consider such a person to be a "good guy" worthy of respect and admiration.

[drjtech]

A year from now Michael will be out on the golf course, looking for "The Real Molester".

-drj

[zzyzzx]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I really think he is innocent.

OK, so if you had a son aged 10-13, would you let him sleep over at Michael Jackson's?

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I really think he is innocent.

OK, so if you had a son aged 10-13, would you let him sleep over at Michael Jackson's?

Believing what I believe, I think so. Besides, If I raised my son well, he surely will know what to do if something should really happens. (Unless somebody point a gun at him, and this is not the case.)
I wouldn't put a son of mine in the hands of a sexual predator, but I think Michael it's not one.

[AlecWest]

As many of his "victims" (with nothing to gain) have come out and refuted the allegations (ie. maid/gardener/whatever:"He fondled McCauly!" McCauly:"Uh, no he didn't."), I'd have to say Not Guilty.

And that's what the jury will say. But a man who reportedly paid as much as $40,000,000 to buy the silence of a boy a decade ago might be willing to pay similar sums to buy the silence of others ... perhaps even more if they speak of him in glowing terms. Keep in mind that McCaulay Culkin's last hit film was back in 1994 (Richie Rich). Since then, it's only been bit parts, minor TV roles, and "voice" appearances. Heck, his last feature film was an 86 minute Croatian production in 2004. Maybe he's running short on cash.

[stiltman]

He will be found guilty

[ZAPPER]

About the only thing that is 100% in this case is the fact that you never can tell for sure whay a jury will do.

Do I think that he is guilty? YES!
I don't know all of the details or even all of the charges or accusitions. But I do believe that he is a pedophile.

Do I think that the mother is a gold digger? YES!
First off my kids aren't going anywhere near someone that I know has previously even been thought of as a pedophile. I believe that she may have put her child in harms way on purpose.
Second, as mentioned above, if I even suspected that my child had been harmed in that manor I would go beserk. I mean flesh ripping, eye gouging, face biting, dismembering flat out beserk! The best thing for him would be if I actually picked up a stick or rock as a weapon and dispatched him quickly. Who cares about money when something like that happens?

I don't know what to think the jury will do. On one hand I fear that the people of California are too bleeding heart and will look the other way. And on the other hand I can not see any reasonable person not convicting him. Alot will have to do with how the judge charges the jury and explains their job. A good judge can bias the jury however he sees fit and still make it look like he is impartial.

Final answer? YES, He will be found guilty of something, but what, and what of it? He still won't get the chair. Either way, I say he will have to work hard to live ten more years.

My apologies if this seems harsh. But I am only a man. Sometimes my responceabilitys seem like the weight of the world on my sholders. But protecting my family is a natural burden that I take on willingly and completely. If squashing any useless punk like him to protect my children is needed, then so be it.

[VCDHunter]

I don't know all of the details or even all of the charges or accusitions. But I do believe that he is a pedophile.

I hope to god I never end up in the dock with you on the Jury.

[shelbyGT]

guilty or innocent... he's farked in the head as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't let myself or anyone I know near him for an extended period of time. And adults letting children sleep over at a grown man's house alone (non family)? Bad parenting right there, IMHO.

[zzyzzx]

As many of his "victims" (with nothing to gain) have come out and refuted the allegations (ie. maid/gardener/whatever:"He fondled McCauly!" McCauly:"Uh, no he didn't."), I'd have to say Not Guilty.

And that's what the jury will say. But a man who reportedly paid as much as $40,000,000 to buy the silence of a boy a decade ago might be willing to pay similar sums to buy the silence of others ... perhaps even more if they speak of him in glowing terms. Keep in mind that McCaulay Culkin's last hit film was back in 1994 (Richie Rich). Since then, it's only been bit parts, minor TV roles, and "voice" appearances. Heck, his last feature film was an 86 minute Croatian production in 2004. Maybe he's running short on cash.

From what I can tell, Michael Jackson isn't into molesting other celebrities. Probably too risky, and I think Michael is more interested in using them as his beard.

[AlecWest]

Keep in mind that McCaulay Culkin's last hit film was back in 1994 (Richie Rich). Since then, it's only been bit parts, minor TV roles, and "voice" appearances. Heck, his last feature film was an 86 minute Croatian production in 2004. Maybe he's running short on cash.

From what I can tell, Michael Jackson isn't into molesting other celebrities.

Well, that's what I was alluding to. McCaulay Culkin is not a celebrity anymore. He's largely a has-been whose last movie was foreign and has been reduced to taking small parts for spare change (and possibly better change for acting work on the witness stand ... ahem).

About the only thing that is 100% in this case is the fact that you never can tell for sure whay a jury will do.

How true. This is one of those sad sad cases where it's easy to dislike both the plaintiffs and the defendant. The kid's parents are gold-diggers. But, as one prosecutor said earlier, molesting the child of gold diggers is just as criminal as molesting the child of parents who aren't gold diggers. Whether they're gold diggers or not is not necessarily the issue ... though it may mitigate how the jury defines "reasonable" doubt. Either way, I'll be glad when the whole thing is over ... and Jackson goes back into the obscurity he was in before this blew up in his face. Heck, if it wasn't for this trial and all the publicity surrounding it, Jackson might have been a media nobody by today. That's what I meant by what I said earlier ... that Jackson's "real" punishment will be obscurity. In a few years, some young parents might be discussing him ... and their kids will get curious looks on their faces and say, "Michael WHO?"

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

Who cares about money when something like that happens?

Couldn't agree more with you.

My apologies if this seems harsh. But I am only a man. Sometimes my responceabilitys seem like the weight of the world on my sholders. But protecting my family is a natural burden that I take on willingly and completely. If squashing any useless punk like him to protect my children is needed, then so be it.

I feel exactly like you, and if he is really guilty, I would like to see him at the end of a rope. I just think he isn't, and also wouldn't like to see someone innocent punished because of the greed of others.

ZAPPER wrote:
I don't know all of the details or even all of the charges or accusitions. But I do believe that he is a pedophile.




I hope to god I never end up in the dock with you on the Jury.

About the only thing that is 100% in this case is the fact that you never can tell for sure whay a jury will do.

You're right, you never know what they are going to do; they might even end the trial by condemning the judge!!

Whether he is declared guilty or not, I think this should end one way or another, or he stops receiving children to play at his ranch, or the parents could stop this by not sending them there.

If you think that he is guilty, don't send your sons there; if you think he is guilty and still do... it's because you have no values at all and are just looking for money.

[AlecWest]

There's one more possibility to consider that might drag this case out for months ... a hung jury.

[pbhalerao]

The jury are now debating ...

As a musician, Michael Jackson is great but he is defintely wierd as a person.

[yoda313]

Hi,

he is defintely wierd as a person.

There's an understatement

Kevin

[AlecWest]

The jury are now debating ...

As a musician, Michael Jackson is great but he is defintely wierd as a person.

"Weird" is a relative concept. If you or me, ordinary guys on the street, let it be known to our circle of acquaintences that we liked sleeping with little boys, we'd have no friends ... and would likely find ourselves behind bars. Jackson, on the other hand, has cheering fans just outside the courtroom who worship the ground he walks on. This brings to mind something Obiwan Kenobe once said in Star Wars Episode IV: "Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" And if you or me, ordinary guys on the street, dangled our infant child from a 2nd story balcony with dozens of witnesses, we'd be in jail for child endangerment and the child would be in protective custody (or a foster home).

Just goes to show that being moneyed and well-lawyered can sometimes make all the difference between freedom and jail ... then ... and possibly in the case before the court right now. The kid-dangling incident was the straw that broke the camel's back in my view.

[stiltman]

He will be found guilty

[jbcandkc]

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I really think he is innocent.
I just can't picture a guy like him, that does so much for the children in the world, suddenly becoming a menace to them.

In my opinion, HE doesn't think what he is doing is a menace to the children. Even IF all that happens in his bed is "sleep", it is still wrong.

jbcandkc

[budz]

I would hope they find him guilty. In my opinion JACKO has something to hide because why would he pay off those two other families, not in the thousands but in the millions. To me he had something to hide. The excuse was to avoid a lengthy court battle for those 2 other boys. Image if he did molest those 2 boys would he do the same to his own kids???? Something to think about eh!!!! To say the mother is a golddigger is funny because Leno & Lopez both testified that the boy and his family never asked them for money. Big blow to the defense!

[ZAPPER]

I don't know all of the details or even all of the charges or accusitions. But I do believe that he is a pedophile.

I hope to god I never end up in the dock with you on the Jury.

Don't worry Buddy, I have been on juries before. I would like to think that I am a good juror. One of the things about being in a courtroom is that it often comes down to playing by the rules, and no matter how guilty you are, if it can't be proven by the rules you don't get convicted.

Something to keep in mind is that whatever the lawyers say does not actually count as testimony or evidence. I like court, it is a fun game. Too bad that the average trial is about stupid things that stupid people do. I mean how often do rocket scientist go to court?

Actually I do like the process, and I have been very impressed with most of the court officers. There is some talent in those people and I admire all of their effort. But I do feel sorry for them because they have to deal with more stupidity than I could stand.

[AlecWest]

In my opinion, HE doesn't think what he is doing is a menace to the children. Even IF all that happens in his bed is "sleep", it is still wrong.

jbcandkc

Our prisons are filled with people who feel the same way ... that what they did was justified in some way.