Do you think he's guilty or innocent?

Michael Jackson Forum

This thread is NOT for a debate. This is just to see what you each think.
Is he guilty of these recent charges? How about the charges from 10 years ago?
Your opinion might change at some point, and if that's the case, make a new post stating what your previous vote was, and what your new one is, and I will change it for you!!

Personally, I can't say either way. I want to see what evidence is brought out in the court case. He could have done these things... sure, he's had many opportunities. But, I also see someone who is so childlike, I can't see him doing that... even though I find him to be a freak!

I too think we should wait for the evidence... however, I can't help but think if MJ is a molester, there would have been hundreds of victims by now. Sickos who hurt children don't hurt just one every 10 years. The fact that we've only heard from 2 possible victims makes me wonder if there's really anything to this...

innocent

He's as guilty as he is homosexual and a pedophile.

Duh.

-I love rap, cause rap rules

I'm going to weigh the facts of the case before making an assumption.
The thing so far that is leaning me towards the determination that he's guilty, is that during the first allegation, his alleged victim described MJ's genetalia to police who then photographed MJ's nether regions for comparison. The descriptions matched MJ's body. There's only a few possible scenarios for why that kid could have known those intimate details.

I will watch and weigh all the facts before my final decision, but I am leaning toward guilty. Pedophiles molest an average of 30 children before they are caught. I personally know a few people who were molested as children. Most do not tell until they are adults, and even then, they do not tell many people. I found the genitalia thing very telling from the first case.

Guilty.

not guilty
The cops said that the genetalia didn't match before... that's why there wasn't a trial.

MICHAEL JACKSON IS DA BEST HES INNOCENT!!! Word to ya motha

I'm waiting for the facts, leaning toward guilty at some point, although not necessarily with this kid.

I have a hard time believing that over many years sleeping with 12-year-old boys, nothing sexual ever happened. Given his missing childhood (he really is still a child), I can accept that any sexual interactions may have been "innocent," but legally he's an adult, which would make such things very illegal.

Guilty. That man is just not normal. What is the need to sleep with little kids in the same bed? He can like children and do nice things for them but let them sleep in their own beds at night! Thats a HUGE clue that this man is a pedophile!

yeah, the boy claimed there were all sorts of abnormalities, kinda makes sense, MJ really isn't all that normal looking. I can see how MJ would pay them off too. Does he really seem like the fighter type to you? Be honest now... I didn't think you'd say yes. He was crying like a baby when he did that press conference the first time, why would he continue to suffer when he could just make it all go away with that money stuff he has no use for.

Nice forum, glad to join. It takes an awful lot for investigators to search the property of a person with as much media attention as MJ receives. Committing 70+ investigators over 17 hours searching through his Neverland property outside SB is not a case of "we're just having a look", it's "we're here to find something". The judicial bar for obtaining a warrant to conduct this kind of search, with the massive media attention it would undoubtedly get, would have been extremely high and there is no way it would have been granted unless 1. there was specific and reliable evidence of a crime(s) having been committed and 2. it was known that there was a very high probability of discovering evidence supporting the commission of the alleged crime(s) at the residences searched. The consequences of getting such a judgement call wrong would be dire for the police indeed, and it is my belief that they have some very strong evidence supporting their actions on this case. They would have been looking for all manner of things, but particularly - 1. evidence that the alleged victim had a relationship with MJ and that he could be placed in certain parts of the residence (fingerprints, hair samples, etc in bedrooms, bathrooms and so forth), and 2. evidence supporting their assertion that MJ is a pedophile (his behavior in home videos involving children, correspondence with children indicating something other than a normal adult/child relationship, the existence of pornographic material, particularly on computers, etc). The fact that they also now have around 100 additional leads from other potential victims and/or persons having information regarding MJ's behavior with children may turn out to be a catastrophe for him. If further cases are uncovered and charged, he cannot simply brush by it claiming that these people are all just about money. That argument weakens substantially with each additonal case uncovered to the point where it becomes obviously irrelevant. His behavior in the past, sleeping in the same bed as young children, etc also leaves a lot to be desired - I've only heard of MJ doing this with young boys, I just haven't heard of an instance where he has shared his bed with a young girl. Even if he has, the vast majority of publicized cases have been with boys, so why the overwhelming interest in just boys? If he loves children so much why not both sexes with equal zeal? It doesn't add up. To be honest I think that MJ is a child in a man's body, who has the needs and desires of an adult but looks to fulfil them in ways that he, thinking like a child can relate to. To me that suggests him fulfiling these adult needs with the only type of people with which he can truly relate, those being children. His adult needs include intimate relationships, a normal part of adult life, yet he cannot seem to make these kinds of relationships work as we have seen. It is also a possibility that he has engaged in relationships with adults to make himself feel normal or at least to try to be that way, and perhaps even more sinisterly, to mask from the prying eyes of the world and particularly the media, his real motivations. None of this may be so and it may be a fact that he is just very naive and abnormal when it comes to relationships with children, but not to the point of engaging in sexual acts with them. I cannot reason that having a young boy sleeping in his bed with him, even if they are just "going to sleep" as he claims, is not abnormal. It is abnormal, but to what extent we do not yet know. If anyone has read the indictment from the '93 case (available on thesmokinggun.com) you would have been deeply troubled as I was by the incredible amount of intimate detail that the child described in his testimony. Either this child had an excellent script writer or what was written was in fact the truth - it had a very sinister, sickening feeling about it, that what this child was describing was very real. I cannot see how a child of that age could make up such a story with the amount of scrutiny that he would have been put under, however anything is possible no matter how impossible it seems, especially where millions of dollars are at stake. The fact that MJ bought the child's testimony is a predictor of guilt, but is not conclusive. There are other reasons why he may have done this, as if that testimony had have come out at trial and been made public, it would have been disasterous for him and his career, whether it was true or false. To most people's way of thinking though, you would rather have this proved false at trial if you truly were innocent to have your name cleared. But we are not all superstars whose career rides on the wave of the media, promotion and public perception, to whom a statement like that would damage so irrepairably. To sum up there are many factors at play and arguments for both sides, however my current interpretation of the facts presented and MJs past and present behaviors and involvements lean towards guilt, if not only from the old adage: where there's smoke...

If you sleep (even non-sexually) in the same bed with children who are not your own or part of your close family, there is definately something wrong. He may not have abused the children but if he is found to have done so, being 'childlike is not an excuse. Even children have a sence of what is right and what is wrong. I don't know how if he is guilty or innocent of abuse yet, but as i said, there is definately something wrong.

I hadn't heard that either, and I've watched quite a bit of news on the subject, just for the sheer morbid curiosity, even though Michael makes me sick. I saw on the news, from a detective who was on the case 10 years ago, that the description matched quite accurately. In fact, this detective said that he absolutely believed the kid's story.

To the best of my knowledge, the reason they did not prosecute him criminally was because the kid refused to testify. But I agree with the above posts - where there's smoke, there's fire. And the fact that he paid the child $15mil, or whatever it was, certainly makes it look like he had something to hide.

I saw a reporter on the news (sorry, don't remember her name) who actually visited Neverland recently and, although I don't think she came right out and said that she thought he was guilty, she said that there were pictures of children everywhere... which you would think was cute at first... until you realized that almost all of the pictures were of boys. Rarely a picture of a girl anywhere. Interesting.

I understand the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but in my mind, there are just too many weird things about this guy. If they go to trial and find he's innocent, more power to him. But either way, I wouldn't let my kids anywhere near him.

I saw the same show that had the reporter talking about only pictures of boys were around. I think it was on FOX.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GUILTY OR NOT BUT ONE THING I KNOW IS THAT NO WAY ON EARTH WOULD I LET MY CHILDREN SLEEP WITH A GROWN MAN.LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE PECULIAR UP BRINGINGS BUT THEY HAVE TO GROW UP.IF HE WAS AN ORDINARY PERSON WHAT WOULD YOU CALL HIM?IF THIS CASE IS BROUGHT HE SHOULD NOT ALLOW HIS MONEY TO BUY OFF WITNESSESS AND VISA VERSA, I CAN'T SEE JUSTICE BEING DONE EITHER WAY, THE ACCUSERS WILL BE CALLED MONEY GRABBERS, AND HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EVER FIND AN UNBIASED JURY.IF HE IS INNOCENT THEN HE IS A FOOL FOR PUTTING HIMSELF IN THAT SITUATION,WHAT OF HIS OWN CHILDREN, WHY DOES HE NEED TO SHARE A BED WITH YOUNG BOYS.HOWEVER THIS CASE GOES HE NEEDS SERIOS HELP AND ANY PARENT LETTING THEIR CHILD STAY THERE WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS BED SHARING MUST BE NUTS,WOULD YOU LET YOUR CHILDREN SHARE A BED WITH A MALE FRIEND ,NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR ETC, I DON'T THINK SO.FAME SEEMS TO HAVE A PECULIAR EFFECT ON THE FAMOUS AND THOSE WHO IDOLISE THE FAMOUS WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE?

I would NEVER allow my child to sleep in ANYONE'S bed. I mean, sure... over at grandma's... scared from something, that's fine... crawl in be with grandma. But there is NO way in the world that I would EVER all a stranger to have my child in the first place... I don't care if he IS famous!!!

I totally agree with Kris. If some person even asked to do that with my kid, oh boy would that sicko be told where to go.

No doubt... If we had to babysit Damon and Nikki, they would be in their own beds! It just isn't right! If a child is scared, and you're watching them, there are other things that you can do. There's nothing wrong with hugging a child... but do it in the living room. Don't have them in your bed. That's just asking for trouble, no matter what!!! DUMB!!!!

Personally, I think people that jump out of airplanes in midair are not normal. So who's to say what is normal? To each his own, just because someone dresses different or looks different, people jump to the conclusion: Oh, they're weird or a freak. Well I guess we're all strange in someway. Go figure.

Once again Mystic you've taken out of content what I've said. I didn't say it was normal for a 45 year old man to sleep in the bed with boys. I said just because Michael seems to be weird to you and others does not make him a child molester. FYI I don't have a son, I have a grandson, no I wouldn't let him sleep over at Michael's he's only 2. I would certainly let him visit, he and I. Remember anger only scorches the ground it stands on. try and have a Good day, because you've got it bad.

I'm not going to assume anything until I've been presented with all the evidence. Although his guilt is already presumed by many people, I think equally the accusations can be groundless, driven by greed. It can't be denied that someone as rich, child-like and gullible as MJ can sometimes be tricked into potentially damaging situations where the perpetrators can then exploit him. I am not claiming this is what happened, but it is possible. So, I think MJ's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

definitely agree, gina50. innocent until proven guilty. in addition, MJ is such an easy target- a huge celebrity, rich (or was), and "different". i could use the word 'freak', but that word is overused by simpletons to describe anyone who doesn't fall within the narrow social norms (not falling within the norm, however, does not imply 'perversion', 'criminality', or, above all, 'inhuman'). just as marilyn manson was accused for influencing the columbine shootings and numerous suicides... just as david koresch led his followers to their death (when they were killed by the FBI and ATF)... MJ, too, will be persecuted to no end by our media-driven society for being different. and just as mcdonald's was sued for 'causing fat kids', MJ is just another easy target for the media and money-starved people with a shotgun lawyer...

Inncocent BUT!! he has a problem. We will soon find out if that problems ruins his life.

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....

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!!!!

If he is accused (again...as he is)...he only has himself to blame....

maybe its the children that he sleeps with that are gullible....

WETHER YOU ARE RICH OR POOR FAMOUS OR NOT THE SAME RULES OF COMMON DECENCY AND LAW SHOULD PREVAIL. HE MAY BE SEEKING LOST CHILDHOOD BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SHARE BEDS WITH CHILDREN FOR THAT,AT HIS AGE COMMONSENSE SHOULD PREVAIL.WILL JUSTICE PREVAIL HARD TO SAY BECAUSE FAME AND GREEDWILL BE AT THE BACKOF EVERYTHING,HE SHOULD IN FUTURE KEEP HIS SLEEPING ARRANGEMENTS TO HIMSEF AND LEAVE THE CHILDREN ALONE,THE ONLY THING WE CAN KNOW FOR SURE IS THAT HIS ACTIONS ARE OF GROSS STUPIDITY,BUT THE BLAME IS ALSO OF THOSE AROUND HIM FOR LETTING THIS GO ONE.

I agree gina50, I don't believe the accusations, but if they are found to be true I hope he gets help. I agree most "people" have already convicted him. He probably means well, by letting all the "disadvanged" children come to his ranch, but I'm sure now he sees it's best they stay as far away as possible, and let their families pay their medical bills.......

Curiously speaking, I wonder how some of us would fair if we were accused of this dreadful act and it was plastered in the media.

So many times we berate the media for its accounting of events, yet time and time again we believe what we read in the media, especially about celebrities.

Does Mike have a problem? I don't think anyone in this forum will dispute that. Does his in peculiar ways make him guilty of pedophilia? I think at the very least he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. We all know what man is capable of. Is it a stretch of the imagination to think that maybe, just maybe this could be a manipulated situation?

One thing is clear though. Much of this, if he is innocent is Mike’s own fault. He should have learned from the last accusation but he doesn’t. I’m not sure if he’ll learn from this one, but I do believe he’s in need of help. Now before some of you jump on this let me slap this disclaimer on it. “

“This statement does in no wise endorse Mike’s behavior with children.”

I think we need to let this play out and see what happens. No matter what happens, even if he’s found innocent, you will have those that will doubt it.

Oh and about the last case. The state does not need the victim, especially if it’s a child, to press charges. They can certainly pick up the case and proceed on their own. The reason they didn’t is pretty much based on the reason why they recently charged him. It’s because of the victim’s word. They had no testimony the first time which shows that was all they had against Mike the first time. You need little else than the victim’s word, especially that of a child to get a warrant to search anyone’s home. It constitutes as reasonable proof.

I agree oneofpeace, Michael should have learned from the last accusations brought against him. I really think he's learned from this one. It's too bad, I guess all present and future terminally ill disadvantaged children will have to depend on their families to pay their medical bills. Just for the record I truly believe these accusations are fabricated, I sure hope they're not true. We'll just have to wait and see.

Yeah Schmigg, I just hope it stops his sleeping with them

Any man that lives on a perpetual Peter Pan farm is certainly in need of some help in making decisions...

No... MJ even made a comment about holding those children in bed!!!

Although I can see where you're coming from nevan, certainly MJ has no one to blame but himself. Innocent or not, his actions are inappropriate. He stated he sleeps with the children. Sexual or not, this is not the behavior an adult should be engaging in.

I personally don't believe that Michael has done anything sexual to the boy that this case is being brought about because of the statements that were made on the interviews where Michael and the boy sat on the couch and willingly told about the fact that the boy had asked to stay in Michael's room and Michael slept on the floor and gave his bed to the boy. Of course Michael or any man could be a molester but with the fact that he had already been accused of it in the past and he was still willing to have someone come into his home and film his every move leaves me with the belief that he is just a loving person that gives his all to helping children. If he has done this crime that he is accused of then he deserves to be brought to trial and punished. I don't think we should judge him by the way he dresses or the plastic surgery he has had. Yes, he has done some out of the ordinary things but that does not make him a criminal. I hope that he is innocent and that he will be cleared of all charges but we will have to wait for the outcome of the case. I don't know Michael personally but it seems to me that being rich and famous has not been a good thing because he is a target for sue happy people.

what could he have done? he cant be guilty like the cops say!;]

he is guilty. bye bye Michael, enjoy prison

I really have to agree with --carin-- because I mean seriously, it's been 10 years since the last accusations, no? And only 2 major cases have come up from it... I have to admit, sleeping in a bed with children isn't what most people would call "normal," but the law says that it's not illegal to just be in the bed without committing sexual acts... even though it's still not something you see everyday, it doesn't automatically mean that the accused is guilty. I mean, there are gays and lesbians who are misunderstood just for being who they are. It's practically the same thing, same logic in Michael's case. I am undecided but ONLY when I see some hardcore evidence that he's done things so malicious, that's obviously when I'll KNOW he's guilty. For now though, because I am a dedicated fan, I stand by him. I just hope that he's innocent because, needless to say the obvious, I wasn't there whether it occurred or not, so... I support him for now and hopefully I'll be able to for the rest of my life because he's done so much good for humanity!!

mystic, i'm totally stumped and undecided and yeah i'll admit that if it was some other 45-year-old man sleeping with kids, everybody would be on a higher alert. but i'm not saying he's innocent because I don't know. I just HOPE that he is because I love the man for like everything he's done, but yes, that's musically. but yeah i just want to go back to my first point about it being a 10-year gap, i didn't say it was okay. i mentioned it because out of all of these kids who have slept with him (who knows how many), only 2 accused him, and the first case was extortion, no? i mean, if i was that boy's mother and my child was molested, i could give a **** about the money. i would want the sicko to be in jail because it's wrong. so yeah my point is that still, i was never there so i can't say he's guilty or innocent, i hope he's innocent and that it's another extortion case.

by the way, i heard somewhere that Michael was providing money for the family and for some reason cut it off, and that's when the accusations came up. does anybody have any info on this??

Mystic whoa....

It sounds like (I could be wrong) that you already have Mike convicted from reading your last 2 posts.

Settling a case has nothing to do with you being guilty, just like it doesn't have anything to do with your innocence. Sometimes the less traveled path is the best course of action that's all.

As for Mike being innocent or guilty, all we have are accusations. The state agency in Cali concluded that the child was not abused by Mike. That will go a long way in his favor. Also coupled with the fact that this is the same prosecutor from his first case is sort of questionable too. He's already made statements like "Jacko Wacko" prior to the charges being filed.

I think this guy has it in for Mike. If he wants to be successful, he should recuse himself from any investigations. As for the mom not filing charges, she has plenty of time to do that, there is no rush and doesn't mean it's not apart of her agenda.

Personally I believe Mike has issues, that's obvious for all to see, but I don't think he did this to this child or at least nothing I've heard so far leads me to believe it happened. I'm not totally convinced one way or the other because I want to see what else is involved. As for my unsolicited opinion, I think so far the ball is in Mike's court, but we haven't heard all the evidence either.

Let's just wait and at least give him the benefit of the doubt. That's the least he deserves.

I take it Mystic that you've been debating this point a lot?

From reading your prior last two post, it had the tones of your mind was made up alreay. I didn't mean to offend you, nor do I think Mike is "sweet & I love him", well I do think he's sweet

Mike chose the way of settlement simply because he wasn't strong enough at that point in time to handle the pressure. I think that last incident made him stronger in that regard so he will figh the charges.

However, I completely agree that he should not be NOT be sleeping in the same bed or in the same room as those children, and because he still hasn't gotten that message, it is the directly the result of the mess he's in now.

People are always quick to believe the worse about some people simply because they're, how you say. "different". All I was pointing out is let's give him the benefit as I see in your post that maybe you are.

PS. I voted the same as you.

I think most of us are smart enough to know that there are THREE sides to each story.
Their side, his side, and the truth. We don't know the answers. We aren't involved in the case.
We don't know what evidence they have to prove MJ's guilt.
We don't know what evidence MJ's team has to prove his innocence.
We aren't that boy who is making the claim. We don't know if he is truthful or deceitful.
Time will tell.... and, it could end up being that he walks off, free of charges, but still guilty.
It could be that he get's hit with going to prison, but is truly guilty.

I don't agree with him sleeping with little boys. I don't think it's right.
But, that does not mean he did what he's being charged with.
I voted that I just don't know... time will tell, and we have to wait and see.

UNFORTUNATELY CHILD ABUSE CAN GO ON FOR YEARS BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TRUSTED.THE TROUBLE IS THAT OTHER ISSUES CAN CLOUD THE POSITION OF THE CHILD,IT IS SIMILAR TO THE WAY RAPE CASES WERE VIEWED.EITHER WAY WHETHER MICHAEL JACKSON IS GUILTY OR NOT HE SHOULD OF DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM CHILDREN AFTER THE FIRST ACCUSATIONS.AFTER ALL PEADOPHILES LIKE BEING WITH CHILDREN,HAVE JOBS WITH CHILDREN AND IS ALL TO EASY TO SAY I,M NOT A PEADOPHILE,PERHAPS THIS WHY CHILD ABUSE HAS CONTINUED WHAT POWER DO CHILDREN HAVE AGAINST ADULTS?THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY TO HIRE CLEVER LAWYERS THEY LIVE IN FEAR AND NOT ALWAYS LISTENED TO ,WHO IS REALLY BEING LISTENED TO IN THIS CASE SHOULD IT NOT BE THE CHILD AND NOT SOMEBODY WHO HAS MONEY AND MEDIA COVERAGE TRYING TO GET THE SYMPATHY VOTE,INNOCENT OR GUILTY SOME OF THE STUNTS MJ PULLS FOR SYMPATHY ARE PATHETIC,WHY SHOULD HE BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER ACCUSED POLICE CELLS ARE POLICE CELLS NOT 5 STAR HOTELS HE IS USED TO.THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE MEDIA COVERAGE ON THIS UNTIL THE TRIAL BY BOTH SIDES IN PARTICULAR MJ'S SIDE.

hi,
he has done nothing. mike is innocent

"Does Mike have a problem? I don't think anyone in this forum will dispute that. Does his in peculiar ways make him guilty of pedophilia? I think at the very least he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt."

I don't think that the thing to remember is "innocent until proven guilty" because it's quite possible to commit a crime and not be convicted of it, but rather "the benefit of the doubt." So as long as there's some doubt in my mind that he actually did molest a child, I can't say that I'm certain he did. I think it's possible that he behaved inappropriately without abusing anyone.

That said, though, I don't think it's unrealistic to think that someone who has been accused of molestation previously, who has many characteristics in common with lists of warning signs of pedophilia (surrounds himself with children, speaks of children in exalted terms such as "pure," etc.), and who has admitted to having slept in the same bed as children, might actually be a pedophile. I also don't think it's improbable that the parents of an abused child would accept a settlement and try to rebuild their lives rather than put their child through the trauma of testifying against their wealthy, powerful abuser. So- guilty, probably, but I wouldn't say for sure.

This is my first post here. I'm sorry he has to be on this subject.

Going back to the first charge of child molestation by Michael Jackson in 1993/4 - he wasn't found guilty OR innocent. The case was merely "settled" for millions of dollars. Back then, children weren't required to testify. Because of that, the laws have changed.

Have you seen the documents written and documented. Take a look:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjsearch1.html

There is no document filed at this point. Just some rhetoric referring to 1993:

NOVEMBER 18, 2003--With sheriff's investigators today executing a search warrant at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch--reportedly in connection with charges made by a 12-year-old boy--attention will again turn to the original allegations of child abuse leveled against the pop star. Below you'll find the bombshell court document that first raised allegations that the singer, now 45, was involved in inappropriate behavior with a young boy. The December 1993 declaration was sworn by a 13-year-old California boy who sued Jackson for, among other things, sexual battery, willful misconduct, and emotional distress. The child's declaration includes a graphic account of alleged sexual encounters with Jackson at Neverland and various hotels.

Personally, I believe MJ did in fact, molest young boys. I wish not. But I feel he did. I just pray that those children will receive whatever help necessary to give them a normal and happy life.

I'm willing to bet my life that after the verdict, guilty or innocent the chiild's mom will definitely file a civil lawsuit. This is a poor family, and MY personal opinion is that it's all for money!!!!! Come on now why would a poor family not go for the civil suit, all the mom wants is justice that's a bunch of crap.

I personally think that Michael Jackson is innocent. I believe that he just has caring feeling for children but yet he doesn't understand what's right in enjoying time with young children. I mean he's a child himself. I think people just need to leave him alone and stop trying to get money out of him or trash his music albums.

I totally agree pizie, since it's so wrong to have children in your bed (just sleeping) make a law against it. Michael is innocent, all he's guilty of is having a child's mind. He never had a childhood of his own, damn.

Everybody is innocent until proved otherwise. There's one thing I don't understand about Mr. Jackson; He has so much money, why didn't he just buy another bed for the kids who visit him? He would avoid all this, well now if he is guilty, its the E-chair for him. Bummer. This should be a lesson to all of us: If a neighbors kid comes to visit you and needs to stay for a night; GET HIM ANOTHER BED (or you'll end up like Mr. J. there)!

If it is made law, it will be pretty hard to prove a case, what are they going to do post undercover officers in EVERYONE'S bedrooms or hidden cameras???

At the moment, I'm just waiting for the evidence before i make up my own mind whether MJ is guilty or not. It seems a grave folly to judge someone on their appearance, or group-affiliation or even on their history and past actions. Its a waste of time to burn somebody over unproved allegations even if they do seem a bit wacko. (Forgive the pun.)

To see my humble opinion on the subject, please go to http://rottenmelon.tripod.com/current/jacko.html

Please also check out the 'site map' (link in top left) for other articles and reviews I have written.

The site http://rottenmelon.tripod.com is under construction at the moment so if you have any suggestions or improvements please send them to dorayakii@hotmail.com . Thanks...

Steve

Your jacko url isn't linked to the internet.

Does everything have to have a government-imposed law against it to be viewed as wrong? Just because there isn't a law against something it doesn't mean that it is right or excusible.

For example, there are no laws against spitting on the pavement, sitting on the train having an atrocious body odour problem or not getting up to let an old lady with a walking stick have your seat; but would you say that these things are right?

Some of the laws that exist are not relevant to modern 21st century life but they are ever present... For example here in England:

All English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy.
Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks.
It is illegal to stand within one hundred yards of Queen Elizabeth II when not wearing socks.
Placing a postage stamp that bears the Queen upside down is still considered treason.
It is perfectly legal for an Englishman to shoot a Welshman with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.
In Islamic law after having sexual relations with a lamb, it is a mortal sin to eat its flesh.

etc... etc... etc...

If you had children of any age would you permit them to sleep in the same bed as a stranger?... a friend?... even their uncle?... Obviously, there are exceptions to this ethical principle (where a relative is concerned anyway) but the fact is that it is a highly questionable thing to allow...

In conclusion, laws are not an accurate measure of what is right and what is wrong. Nor should they set standards of morality for us. MJ sleeping with a child, although not illegal, can justifyable be said to be either wrong or at the very least questionnable.

Steve

I wonder if this will work?...

<a href="http://rottenmelon.tripod.com/links.html">Rotten Melon Michael Jackson Link</A>

No it doen't seem to work. Just cut and paste this into your address bar:

http://rottenmelon.tripod.com/current/jacko.html

Did that, still not working.... you got to get your server to uplink it to the net.
Tripod seems to be the disconnect.

That's wierd, the link isn't working at my end, but if I cut and paste it, it works. I don't know how to "get my server to uplink it to the net", but some of my friends have already visited my site so it must be online...

Hang on, the link is working now, it was my stupid pop-up blocker preventing it. Try again,... the site is definately online...

steevmak,
You could just copy and paste it here. Unless it's multi pages or something.

Thanks

For the Home Page of the Site:
http://rottenmelon.tripod.com

For the Micheal Jackson Article:
http://rottenmelon.tripod.com/current/jacko.html

So when does "suspiciion" become guilty as sin? This is the mentality of those cops, called probable cause. Very low level of evidence as opposed to DA's responsibility to act as an officier of the court in truthfully filing and pursuing a CRIMINAL case. Jackson possibly needs psychological and not legal assistance.

WOULD M.J. LET HIS CHILDREN SLEEP WITH A STRANGER, HE MIGHT BE FAMOUS BUT HE IS STILL A STRANGER THESE CHILDREN AND PARENTS ONLY KNOW HIM THROUGH HIS FAME AND THE IMAGE HE PROJECTS,FANS DO NOT KNOW THE REAL M.J THAN THOSE WOULD ARE NOT.THE QUESTION OF HIS CHILDREN SHARING A BED WITH ANOTHER ADULT IS PROBABLY NOT ,AND WHY GIVEN THAT HE HAS HIS OWN CHILDREN DOES HE NEED TO SHARE A BED WITH TOTAL STRANGERS CHILDREN,HE IS DOING THESE CHILDREN NO FAVOURS AND BETTER JUDGEMENT IS CLOUDED BY HIS FAME.

Okay, so in your mind, MJ is guilty of bad judgement for sharing a bed (nothing sexual.) Is the correct venue trying to put MJ behind bars? I pay enough taxes. If he's looney, he needs medical help. The cops should stay away, only to make things worst. MJ has security 24/7, how about they doing their jobs and earning their keeps. The young kids should be told to go home and sleep in own bed. This case is NOT about MJ following the kids home and attacking them in bed. So how can you say he's guilty.....guilty of what?

http://www.wbkids.com/MJ_WEB_PICS/thumbs/th_dangerous-misc_013.jpg MJ helps children of the world, not harms them.

Ken, she's right. You're doing this to many of the posters.
Just because people don't see that he's outright innocent, that does not mean they are saying that he is guilty either.

I'm with mystic... he's definately guilty of stupidty and ignorance.

Yes, I think we've struck the nail right on the head here: it is quite possible for MJ to be both innocent and guilty at the same time . Let me explain...

There are really two (or even more) types of guilt. Innocence or guilt in the eyes of the law (of which i am as yet undecided as to which category MJ fits into, and of which legal intervention is needed) and moral innocence or guilt (in which in my eyes MJ is guilty, but which is only partly dealt with by the Courts).

This moral guilt includes the guilt of stupidity and ignorance that mystic and KJ aptly pointed out, and it definitely requires the intervention of a psychologist and/or the aid of a psychiatrist. One of the questions to ask though is 'Can someone be guilty by ignorance?' . In other words, is the fact that MJ had a bad childhood and has subsequently not 'grown up', a valid excuse for his alleged behavior (sexual abuse) or even for his admitted behavior (merely sleeping with children)?

In my opinion there are some things by which we can be guilty by ignorance and some by which we cannot. Where that line is drawn is subject to individual circumstances and is often the matter of hot debate and the reason why discussions such as this are not decisive. He may be innocent of child abuse but could he be guilty of ignorance or stupidity?

Well, that settles it then for the three. Look at the timing, the manner, the insinuation, the media fervor and the court of public influence to pollute the potential jury pool. Why bother going through with a legal trial?

People are resonating among themselves and nullifying the Constitutional principals of INNOCENCE PRESUMPTION (gulity of something.) I probably would take a lessor position and not challenge as strenuously had the trial been over or possibly as even as earliest as after the criminal jurors empaneled and sequestored. Then the timing, manner and media commentaries cannot become an instrument to plant false notions into the minds of THE PEOPLE. Think about that.

I THINK THE QUESTION OF FAME IS CLOUDING JUDGEMENTS,NOBODY HAS PASSED JUDGEMENT EXCEPT THAT HE IS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT TO CARRY ON SLEEPING WITH CHILDREN AFTER ALREADY ONE CLAIM WAS MADE AGAINST HIM.I HAVE ALSO STATED IN THE PAST THAT THOSE SURROUNDING HIM SHOULD OF BEEN AWARE WHAT THIS SORT OF PUBLICITY WOULD DO FOR HIM.THIS SITUATION WOULD NEVER OF OCCURED IF HE AND THOSE AROUND HIM USED COMMONSENSE.