The, next step in the saga of Michael is the selection of a jury for the trial. Which by all indications will last approx. six months? With all the controversy and media coverage over the last few years finding a neutral jury would seem to be almost impossible. If you were called upon to serve, could you, without allowing what you have previously heard effect your thinking. In other words could you be a fair and impartial juror.
He's going to be doomed either way.
Does he get off, the public will cry: he got off easy due to
his celebrity status.
Is he found guilty, the same thing will happen. Although
I cannot imagine him surviving behind bars. He probably
would have to be put into solitary confinement to protect
him from other inmates.
Is MJ Guilty?
Well as people will always say "The jury will determine that."
I'll play devil's advocate
Michael Jackson will be proven innocent simply based that he is high-profile celebrity and that is what typically happens if to celebrities. It's not neccesarily a fact, but it happens. It's hard to believe for some, but it can and it does happen. $$$$$
Mr jackson clearly has serious psychological problems, he is a 45 year old man (old enough to be a grandad) and he lives in a house called Neverland, has disney style attractions on his property, has a pet chimp called Bubbles and has turned himself from a nice looking African American to a white freak.
He admits on television(Martin Bashir interview) that he sees nothing wrong in sleeping in the same bedroom as children despite the fact that 12 ish years ago he was accused of paedophilia and paid the family of accusers $20 million to settle out of court.
My question is this, would you let your children sleep at the home of someone with Mr Jacksons past record, even though it may be nothing more than eccentricity?
Since the answer has to be NO then why did the parents of the children in this case allow them to sleep there?
The only conclusion that any sensible, logical person could arrive at is that they wanted the same $20 million that Jordan's family got.
Should there be serious jail time in this case, yes there should, the parents of these children should get 20 years for reckless endangerment of minors, or whatever term the USA has for the revolting behaviour of these parents.
The difference between this case and the one Jackson settled for twenty million dollars is that the law has changed. This case could not be settled the same way, because the charges can no longer be dropped. If the parents were thinking money instead of criminal action they blundered.
I simply cannot say, this is one of the few subjects that I just can't form a hypothesis on. There are just too many variables involved.
I agree with CalamityJane on what she said.
Jackson's mentality is unlike any that I've encountered among the paedophiles I've talked to. I wish I could know more about him, since is hard to form a clear picture.
Hmm...
As far as it is going...it doesn't sound like he did anything to harm this young person.
Michael has a few loose screws in his head, however, I don't think he is guilty.
hes not guilty...and even if he was theres no way that he's going to get a fair trial with the american obsession with trial by newspaper - theres no way that they could find an impartial jury.
the thing is though, that he had such a fucked up childhood tht he still wants to be, and perhaps thinks that hes a kid. stuff like bopping along to one of his songs played in court a while back - its fairly obvious hes not all there. if u look at it that way then, while still mildly worrying, the childrens parties etc etc look so much less ominous -x-
hes not guilty...and even if he was theres no way that he's going to get a fair trial with the american obsession with trial by newspaper - theres no way that they could find an impartial jury.
the thing is though, that he had such a fucked up childhood tht he still wants to be, and perhaps thinks that hes a kid. stuff like bopping along to one of his songs played in court a while back - its fairly obvious hes not all there. if u look at it that way then, while still mildly worrying, the childrens parties etc etc look so much less ominous -x-
Someday, one would think that Michael Jackson would grow up and use some adult common sense and intelligence.
He should have KNOWN that he would be a target for charges of molestation if he was ever alone with a child again AFTER he paid millions of dollars to settle a previous claim. Why would he knowingly place himself at risk again by having pajama parties and sleeping in the same bed with young boys?
Either he's a molester or damn stupid.
I honestly think he's very limited in his mental capacity.
He is very childlike himself and probably innocent
in his childlike abilities to add two and two together.
Innocent until proven guilty, y'all, but really. He may be childlike and whatever but he's a freaking pervert. Hard to believe anyone really believes nothing happened. He's obviously a predator.
And it's never a good idea to give alcohol to an underage cancer patient who has only one kidney.
If I let little boys sleep with me in my bed and showed them porn and gave them alcohol and then showered them with gifts (a $75,000 watch?) ...I'd be locked up in a Detroit second. Or lynched.. or both.
Hey, and you know how he had a hellacious back pain that sent him to the hospital yesterday morning? And he was in too much pain to comb his hair or change out of his pajamas before court? I say "bullshit!" He had time to put his nose on before being rushed to the hospital.
I've never understood the idea of his being "childlike." In the sense of retarded? I wouldn't think so. Perhaps a state of arrested development.
I tend of think of it as a willfull childishness, and not terribly appealing. But I'll let the jury sort out the legal issues...
I agree with Zane. He's f*cking children.
I'm sure there's another thread on a2k about this very subject, and I offered my opinion at that time that Jackson is not guilty, but has very bad judgements about what he does/acts. As far as I'm concerned, he's not guilty until found otherwise. To presume he's guilty without knowing the facts is just plain unfair. We can all agree his judgements about playing with children at his age is not the smartest thing to do; that alone doesn't make him guilty of the child molestation charge.
That whole innocent until proven guilty thing only applies to the courtroom, doesn't it? My opinion doesn't affect the legal process, so I'll say it again. I believe he's f*cking children.
That's right; that's the reason why it's being tried in the court room.
My personal thinking: He's guilty. But, I can abide by the jury's decision.
