Do you think he's guilty or innocent?

Michael Jackson Forum

WELL THE CASE IS ABOUT TO GO THE JURY, I HAVE A STRONG FEELING THAT MICHEAL JACKSON WILL WALK RIGHT OUT OF THIS ONE. THE PROSCECUTION HAS NOT PROVED THIS CASE AT ALL, THERE ARE TOO MANY DOUBTS THAT HAVE BEEN CAST IN THIS TRIAL. I ADMIT MICHAEL HAS A VERY WISE ATTORNEY AND A DAMN GOOD ONE!!!

If one of this pedophile's songs comes on the radio...I immediately change the station.
It's too bad because some of the music was pretty funky.

This thing better go to jail or more kids will suffer because of this freak.

Alternate history alert ......just imagine if Michael Jackson never went to a plastic surgeon, fell in love with a beautiful women at a young age and never became weird.!? if that had happened he would probably still be the biggest mega star in the world and would have billions instead of hmm who knows what he is worth now...possibly negative when this is all and done....is it nature or nurturing??? I do blame most of his problems on nurturing.
bad parenting possibly at the beginning and no guidance along the way. what a waste

They ought to lock up Joe Jackson while they are at it.

I said it before, I'll say it again,

I think jail would be a world of good for the guy,

Instead of money eyed people around him that tend to his every whim,

he will be told when to eat, when to sleep, when to work, etc.

And maybe get some counseling in jail, get his life straight. When he gets out in 7 years or whatever,

I think he would be more well rounded, a child pervert....maybe, they say they never change,

but at least more of a normal dude.

Hopefully.


And if he gets off, maybe some sense was knocked into him, and he won't have kids over anymore and have a bunch of his porn laying around the room, instead of hidden in a drawer like it should be.

Time will tell the tale I guess.

I guess it doesn't matter any more whether we think he is guilty or not because the jury has found him Not Guilty on all counts.


I really don't know what to say. I believe in the jury system and they found reasonable doubt that he was guilty. But I do feel that if you or me or any normal (non-celebrity) were indicted on those charges the outcome would very probably not be same.

I do know one thing, before I decide to murder, molest or commit any other heinous crime, I intend to become famous, (keyword before, not like Scott Peterson who become famous after committing murder) of course I am joking because I would never decide to murder or molest someone. (it would probably be spontaneous sorry I can't help myself )

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/michael-jackson/trial-gallery/mj-gallery-033005.jpg Michael Jackson on March 29, 2005, the day Jamie Masada, owner of the Laugh Factory comedy club, took the stand. Masada, who introduced Jackson to the accuser, testified he once received a phone call from the boy's mother alleging she and her son were imprisoned at Neverland Ranch. (yeah right! Then he lets Janet the mom go on shopping spree and get bikini waxed.) Talking about biting the hand that feeds ya. This entire case is nothing but about human greed.

DA Sneddon still feels he and his office did a GREAT job, now yakking LIVE on TV with Diane Dimond. It took him since 1993 to mount this case until 2005 to lose it unanimously. This California prosecutor needs a set of new spectacles. He can't see crap!

Shows the poll wasn't that accurate. Nor were all the hundreds of legal pundits yakking on TV 24/7 to provide the WORLD nothing but entertainment. Nothing was newsworthy. Everything was media hyped. Our INReview Poll tallied the following from 159 votes:

* Yes - with no doubt, he's done these things! 52 votes - 32.70%

*No - there is no way that he would have ever done such things! 48 votes - 30.19%

* I'm undecided. I want to see the evidence before casting my vote! 59 votes - 37.11%

I think this case has nothing to do with celebrity because it's all about reasonable doubt. If the prosecution brought such a case with a person that didn't have much money, I would find it hard to believe that anyone would convict.

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/michael-jackson/trial-gallery/jackson-gallery-040605.jpg Jackson didn't smile today after the NOT guilty verdict.

I don't give celebrities any slack either. They're either guilty or not guilty based on the evidence. Last time I was a juror deliberating after closing arguments in the NJ Courts, I tried being fair to both sides, including the side with less resources to mount their rebuttal arguments and evidence. That's the power of being a juror to be able to level the playing field , so high priced lawyers and their BS NEVER influenced my deliberation. Not because s/he has money to mount a defense. However I feel for those pro-se attempting to represent themselves or those defended by a public defender. Not that they're bad, just that the State and their bottomless pocket squandering taxpayer money, they can outspend the average American defendant.

For the jurors: Male juror making post-trial interview saying he has personal feelings about Jackson but that as a juror he was required to look at the evidence and render a decision based on reasonable doubts, and he didn't let his personal feelings interfere with making the deliberating on the 10 counts.

Therefore, it had nothing to do with celebrity status and everything about the prosecutor Sneddon bringing into the court the required evidence. Sneddon tried to bluff his way without the cards in his hand.

For the Jackson supporters: They don't feel he did it. About 100 Jackson fans gathered in front of the courthouse for a candlelight vigil the morning of April 4, 2005, to show their support for the singer. The fans dressed in white and wore gold armbands similar to the armbands Jackson wears. "Michael's in a fight for his life," one fan said. "We've got to be here."

http://www.courttv.com/graphics/photos/trials/michael-jackson/trial-gallery/vigil-gallery-040605.jpg

pictures and colors and changes in font don't make the post the gospel.

furthermore, to say that the case was 'frivolous' in light of everything that was known about this weirdo's behavior, not only in this case, but in the past years, is an outlandish inference!

One thing to mention, (I dont' know if it's already been mentioned) is that the Jury believes that he did sleep with boys but that the case as presented did not live up to the charges/accusations made. Basically they ruled on the accused charges only and didn't inject their gut feelings into it.

So they found him NOT GUILTY of the charges but it doesn't say that he is innocent.

I didn’t hear the jury say that. They said they personally believe he has done it in the past but this family AND the accuser wasn’t credible. There’s a difference. Let me post his quote,

“Later, in an interview on "Larry King Live," Hultman said he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys."
"I can't believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn," he said. "I mean that doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case and that's where we had to make our decision."

Well you said the same thing as I did, I just worded it different. But I didn't see the Larry King thing.

Ron, I read the same thing you did....and here is another statement to that fact.

I have been saying from the start Mystic that this kids assertions didn’t make sense. Your article you posted goes right to the heart of that assertion.

“Mr. Hultman said, the prosecution's timetable did not seem to make sense, especially the contention that Mr. Jackson molested the boy when there was intense public focus on the singer's admission that he slept with boys....”

If I recall correctly when I told you that the accuser said MJ molested him after the investigation started, you replied that that’s just what molesters do and they couldn’t help themselves. I beg to differ. The idea of MJ molesting him only came about AFTER the Brushier interview. And while MJ was under this intense scrutiny he chose to molest the boy just doesn’t seem plausible.

However regardless of how you or I feel personally for that matter, have you ever thought that maybe there wasn’t any evidence because it didn’t happen? From listening to the jury speak after the verdict, they said they could not believe the mother whom they thought coached the boy. Clearly she was relevant.

Now given you have 12 people in one room looking at the evidence, it isn’t uncommon for a few of them to see it differently. We’re doing that in this forum. However, after they all talked about it, they realize that there was indeed doubt about whether this particular molestation took place. I don’t think anyone has said there wasn’t anything to consider but when weighing all the factors, it just didn’t stand to reason.

Now you can believe that he did it till the cows crow like roasters but if there isn’t any reasonable evidence in this trial after prosecutors ransacked Neverland over and over again, then either two things exist here. Either MJ was so meticulous that he got rid of everything, all of it or it never existed in the first place.

Draw your own conclusions but in this case the boy was lying.

"None of us can really know if Michael Jackson is innocent or guilty. But what we DO know is that....


....he's guilty."

He's not guilty of the charges, it doesn't mean he is innocent.

PMFJI Jim. What you posted all the jurors found NON-persuasive. All nine were nothing but indirect inference to make Michael Jackson LOOK bad as to moral character. Looks can be deceiving.

http://images.ibsys.com/2005/0613/4603647_200X150.jpg Nothing but a scandal, but where are the EVIDENCE directly related to Jackson actually commiting penetration to the boy Gavin Arvizo? You can give me 9 or 99 more of the same stuff about what other people saw Jacko going wacko at his own house and castle. It makes him appear horny only. Okay, that now proves he does disrobe and let his hair down at home and with friends. Does that make him force himself and sexually MOLESTED Gavin? Where is the evidence? Even your best #1 male juror who had thought MJ could have done it (with what you said and prior allegation dropped by same DA,) he along with all the other 3 male and 8 female jurors all still came to the same conclusion that Sneddon failed to provide the court evidence to connect Jacko wacking with Gavin.

NO witnesses testified any direct sexual contact with Gavin.... only licking some other kid? Only sharing a warm bed? Kids cuddling up to people, doesn't mean they engaged in sexual acts of molestation.

All twelve jurors said they evaluated the entire evidence over the 7 days including the following, that didn't make Jackson guilty of the charges presented in this case .

quote:

1. employees testifies they saw acts of molestation 2. employees testified they saw jackson in states of arousal while children were in the bedroom 3. erotic materail was in the room and exposed to children 4. the accuser's fingerprints were found on one of the erotic magazines 5. an eyewitness testified to seeing jackson give an alcoholic drink to the victim 6. a witness saw jackson kissing one of the boys 7. a witness saw jackson licking a boy's head. 8. jackson slept with one young boy or another virtually year-round 9. there is evidence that jackson paid millions to two boys who had similar complaints

Could it be they merely were spending time together, acting innocently, stupid and just having fun? In an interview on CNN, juror #1 Raymond Hultman questioned the way Jackson has shared his bedroom and bed with young boys. Hultman said "that doesn't make sense" to him and he along with all the other jurors said Sneddon didn't provide any "smoking gun" that proved Jackson molested this boy Gavin Arvizo in this case for any of the 10 counts. He said the prior incident wasn't sufficient evidence along with all the DA evidence and witnesses PROVED Jackson molested the accuser. He along with the other jurors didn't felt the accuser had a strong enough case to even make Jacko guilty of any of the 10 counts in the molestation and the lesser conspiracy charges.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40622000/jpg/_40622094_tom_sneddon_203getty.jpg Sneddon over-reached and threw the kitchen sink at Michael Jackson along with the garbage disposal. It took him more than 10 years and his Wacko Jacko case had more holes than a piece of Swiss Cheese.

funny, but in my experience, defense lawyers seem to always stand by the defense, even in cases where guilt seems pretty obvious. not so in this case. the vast majority of them said that they thought he was guilty. many of them said the prosecution did not prove his guilt and many of them said there was more than enough evidence to convict. from what i saw, the majority were expecting a guilty verdict on at least some of the charges. more importantly, most of them, regardless of their expectations on the verdict, believed he was guilty. this is a first for me. i've never seen so many defense lawyers believe in a defendent's guilt before-not even in the simpson case.

so, ken nj, if you see 99 pieces of evidence pointing to guilt, but none of them are able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the offense never occurred? your bias is showing. it just doesn't happen that way in life, sorry.

someone actually witnessed mccauley culkin having a sex act performed on him. culkin, for whatever reason, denies this. that means that didn't happen too, right? the guys were just - how did you say it? - "having fun"? that kind of fun is illegal.

once again (and i don't know how many times i have to say this), we're talking about whether or not these acts actually happened, not whether they the verdict should have been guilty. you and oneofpeace cannot get away from arguing why the jurors found him not guilty. that's not the point i keep trying in vain to make. those acts DID happen. you can stand on your head trying to justify what you really want to believe, and that won't change reality. i think the vast majority of citizens around the country who heard all the evidence, both in and out of court, and had their eyes open and ears listening know better. the same goes for people in the legal profession.

it happened. bet your bottom dollar on it. i don't care WHAT the verdict was. not guilty DOES NOT always mean INNOCENT! it often means NOT PROVEN, and that's exactly what it meant in this case.

'fun', my eye! admit the truth to yourself.

first, I appeal to any other child who was sexually abused by michael jackson to come forward and report it to the authorities. hopefully, you don't have a crazy mother. i realize that reliving the experience on the witness stand, and facing your friends and acquaintences will be a traumatic experience, but please help put this sicko away for a few years. millions will thank you.

secondly, i ask that all of you who see the truth refrain from buying any jackson recordings, attending any of his live performances, or doing anything else that might line the pockets of this pedophile.

Lets face it...

There are even some priests that cant keep their hands off children, and we are to believe that the number of times that this guy shared his bed with young boys, which total years in time, that nothing happened?

Why cant I believe that? I dont.

45 year old men dont just choose to sleep with young boys just to sleep...this guy thought he could publically state that it was fine and get away with it because he is famous...

Oh, he actually did get away with that, didnt he?

http://www.redferns.com/ln_pictures/100_orig/FC1004_JACKSON_FIVE_P.JPGHere Michael looks black, doesn't he? Some things might have occurred but NOT for molestation purposes. More reasonably inadvertently or for innocent purposes. Life isn't the way you view things in absolute terms. Lots of interpretation and lots of room for error. Lots of distance between the rainbow of shades of gray. You have nothing but a swiss cheese theory thinking negative of people trying to do good for humanity. What if you were mistakened to harm the good deeds he poured his heart out to help the world? Jackson has a good heart as opposed to THIS accuser in this case making ALL these unproven allegations.

your reasoning, if it weren't so sad, is almost laughable.

i took a shower this morning. nobody actually saw me in there, so i didn't take a shower. yeah, the towel is wet, my hair is wet, the mirror's a liitle steamed with vapor, and someone outside might have even heard the water pipes running. however, other things might have caused those same effects. if i can come up with millions, i'm sure i can find a high-powered lawyer to point that out to a jury, who will then have some nagging doubts about my shower story.

so, that takes care of the trial verdict. as for whether or not it really happened? i never took that shower. it just looks like i did.

I beleive that someone who was working there, like a cook or a maid, witnessed something illegal going on. Apparenlty, Culkin won't admit it, after his role in Party Monster, I don't see why it's so hard.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00014K5TQ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

This was posted a week before I arrived here on the BB.

quote:

mystic said this in post #34 I see him innocent until proven guilty...but...... I find it funny that people can throw out words like MJ is child-like and gullible, and can be tricked into things like this.... http://www.moviegoods.com/affiliate2/adView.asp?affiliateID=1078&adID=14792 Time for Jackson World Tour. Michael Jackson is now DECLARED innocent by a court of law. The evidence showed and the jurors deliberated that the mother Janet Ventura - Arvizo suffers from BPO and can't be trusted. The 70 old grandmother juror can't stand the Sneddon's star witness snapping her finger at them while on the witness stand. The DAs put certified liars that have a long history of filing frivolous and false allegations, whether against J.C. Penny, against own husband David Arvizo in own divorce lawsuit and now against Michael Jackson. These crackpots all have one thing in mind... $$$$$$ when lying which now proved "MJ is child-like and gullible." If a 45 year old man (child like as he seems ), who KNOWS wrong from right (and he does...lets face it)....should know better than to sleep with little boys in his bed. He has already been accused once, and he STILL didnt learn his lesson..... gullible would have been the word used the first time.... now the word is just STUPIDITY!!!! But did he sleep with boys after this second time around Mystic? Nope! You're still going back into the old stuff when he didn't know any better. His spokepeople now say MJ has learned his lesson the hard way. (no pun intended) So no more molestation cases in the future. But I would venture to believe that all the disappointed people out there will continue with joking about his nose, skin color and other kind of stupid stuff to poke fun of him. http://www.flyingchair.net/images/mj7.jpg These are all stupid but funny, as if people reliving their childhood behaviors. #1. Q: What did Michael Jackson say when a boy in a car mooned him going down the road? A: "I'll be there!" #2. Q: What do Michael Jackson and Miss Bobbit have in common? A: They both played with little wieners. #3. Q: Why did Michael Jackson get kicked out of the school cafeteria? A: Because he ate all the kids' wieners. #4. Q: What do Michael Jackson and Walmart have in common? A: They both have small boys pants at half off!

He never thought kids were that devious.

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/208546.1020.A.jpg The Wiz

Cast: Michael Jackson, Diana Ross, Nipsey Russell, Ted Ross, Mabel King, Thelma Carpenter, Richard Pryor, Lena Horne; Directed by: Sidney Lumet - See The Movie @ Cost $19.99

http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_pro...6481&sku=208546

i think i have it all figured out!

ken nj IS michael jackson!

{or maybe a wannabe}