Is Michael Jackson guilty or not?

I'm not on a jury.

like anyone, I haven't seen the evidence. But if I were forced to pick right now whether he'll be found guilty or not guilty, I'd go with guilty.

michael is 1 very sad guy.


i distrust the allegations; knowing his reputation, no parent other than a gold-digger wd leave a child w/him.




at any rate, he's a very sad childman.

Only a jury or a judge can do that.

I intend to wait until the verdict has been returned. All this second-guessing the legal system (flawed though it is) gives me the willies.

--bkl

So far, he's just weird. I'm not sitting in a jury so I can't comment on the other stuff.

Still love ya though, NSMA

And I agree with you about Kobe.

by reason of mental defect.

...I just do not like this "tried in the media" crap. Remember the Mcmartin pre school trial? and how everyone in the country just KNEW they were guilty?

or other freedom-hating malcontent would say "guilty" or "not guilty" without seeing the evidence.

that this poll decides his legal guilt.

The better question might be "Do you believe Michael Jackson committed the crimes with which he's charged?"

There's really nothing wrong with discussing it. Did everybody here have no opinion on OJ's guilt prior to the verdict? Did the verdict convince you he was not guilty of the charges?

Call me old fashioned.

None of us here in the Lounge purports to know the future.

I know, that's why I asked whether he did it or not. Now that you gave me the idea, I will go in the meeting room and ask if he will molest in the future or not.

Pending outcome of the trial, he is innocent until proven guilty. But maybe someone around here can tell the future, and will know what the verdict is.

you understand the question.

Did he commit the crimes he's accused of? The jury verdict has no bearing on that question.

The poll is poorly worded, but pretending that people don't have opinions about crimes until the jury's verdict is rendered is silly.

Did you have no opinion about OJ until the jury verdict was in? And once it was in, did you say "well, that settles it. He didn't do it."

it was assumed that it is an OPINION. What do you think, did he do it, or not? That's all.

:shrug:

I think the first time might've been just for money
But twice
I don't know if he did more than maybe touch the kid and the kid freaked and then the parents freaked but I don't think Michael's behavior (hanging with all these kids, sleeping in his room-even if it is two stories, Mac Culkin)

But the parents of these kids should take some of the blame. I would never allow my kid to sleep at anyone's house if they were Michael's age.

... of being a fine piece of ass. :puke:

sexually.

Personally, I'd much rather see OJ find the killers he's been relentlessly pursuing since his acquittal. I'll be happy to buy the mirror myself.

We have no idea what went down. All we have is various pundents spin on things. Sorry. Innocent until proven guilty and we are simply not in the court room.

Give the guy a break!

Innocent until proven guilty, as far as I am concerned.

It is the liberal - and I say, constitutional - way.

Now, if you'd asked about whether we THINK he is guilty or not, that' sone thing. But asking if he IS guilty - no one can answer that until after a trial.

but we all have thoughts about it. I didnt' suggest locking him up based on the results of this poll

Michael leave those little boys alone. For someone your size man!!!

Whether he's guilty, well, I don't know. But I do have my suspicions....

But if he's innocent, I think he deserves to go to jail for being such a dumb fuck for putting himself in the position to even get accused AGAIN for child molestation.

After he was accused the first time, he should never, ever, ever have allowed himself to be alone with little kids again, especially pre-pubescent boys. Which proves to me he is so fucked up in his head, perhaps beyond repair, because how rational is that???

Which leads me to have my suspicions.....any rational adult who knows the seriousness of such accusations and understands the consequences of being accused of such a crime would have avoided all of this.

But the key is rational.....pedaphiles don't view their acts as criminal or even wrong in any way. What is criminal in our eyes is innocent in their rationalization....what we think is cohersion and manipulation of a powerless child they view as love and it's WE who have the problem. As I remember, what did the fool say about it being completely innocent to share his bed with a guest, maybe even a child....

Now, I don't know about y'all, but IMO, unlike OJ, the glove just might fit....it's a glitter glove, but who is famous for that.....

I'm just sayin'..

I don't know what he's done since 1992, but since he paid off his previous accuser to the tune of MILLIONS, he's been bloody damn stupid to sleep with young boys, let alone to be to be in a room with them without a third-party adult chaperone present. Regardless of his other charges, he should be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor for being the dumbest motherfucker on Earth.

He just can't control his compulsion for little boys, just like a pedaphile can't overcome their's without intensive, serious, and continuous therapy, if at all. High recidivism rate.

That just makes much more sense, but I may be wrong. Innocent till proven guilty, of course, but I have my opinion.....

Except for the victims, if any.

I can't stand media sensationalism surrounding celebrity crimes. I don't watch it and I don't give a shit, except Winona Ryder was hot. I did want to carefully examine her nipples.

it wouldn't suprise me if he were guilty.

Why would kids lie about something like that?????

And what about his own kids? What he "admits" to doing to them constitutes child abuse!