Michael Jackson: Not guilty

Not guilty on all ten accounts. I am not quite sure what to make of this. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure he committed any crime against a child (though I am more sided on the fact that he did) but in this particular case, I think I would have acquitted him as well.
My reasons for finding Michael Jackson not guilty (in this particular case, if I so happened to be on the jury) the mother had a terrible background. She had the previous case against J.C Penny's, which she won and got a huge amount of money for, she had been accused of false crime reporting in the past, and the thing that got to me the most was that her and her divorced husband had filed cases against each other accusing one another of abusing their son. There's near no doubt in my mind that if Jackson was guilty in this particular case that the mother put her child in that situation strictly for this outcome (rather a guilty verdict though). I am more so for the idea that she faked the entire crime, and if Jackson is guilty of other accounts, used those crimes as factors in her false case.

Of course she could be telling the truth, but given her history, I think this was a complete lie.

I totally agree with all of the above posts. Michael may be very, very...strange. But not guilty.

Bob: I would love for you to explain the psychology in it. I'm sure its very interesting.

Bob: I'd love to know too.

So to would I Bob, I've heard many theories on this but I'm sure theres always a new one and yours will more than likely intrigue me...

Yeah as for the matter at hand I really don't care about Michael and can't really say I know enough about the case to be opinionated either...

Yes, that is a little strange. I do not know the man nor did I care to follow the trial so I couldn't even form an opinion if I wanted to. But what happened with the pictures and sleeping with the boy(s) was a little creepy.

Regardless of what was or what wasn't he is a free man.

I just don't undestand why he was acquitted on the alcohol counts....that's what confuses me.

I have near nothing as far as info goes pertaining to Michael distributing alcohol, so I need to study that before discussing.

Bob; I see why you think he's innocent, but I think everything you stated was very much debatable. You say he built the ranch because of his desire for childhood, something that he never experienced. Couldn't that desire lead to sexual molestation? and every point of yours could be seen in a different aspect and make perfect sense. I'm not saying they're wrong, they do prove your opinion, but they are indeed very debatable.

Question to all: Has everyone noticed that all these accusations are being brought up as events that occurred after Michael had taken his...odd turn?
As far as I know (could be wrong) there have been no claims that Michael committed any crime before his plastic surgery and new appearance. I think that might be saying something...

"I could care less how the filth of others minds control their thoughts that it is an impurity to truly love a child,"
This sounds stupid coming from a 16 year old, but that truly sounds naive.
And how do we know that this whole "love for children" was not a technique or show put on to make people believe exactly that? and I hardly think that people suspecting Michael Jackson of molestation makes them "filthy in the mind". Parents’ accusations, his odd actions, and indeed the fact that he admitted to sharing his bed with children is enough to create suspicion. Doesn't necessarily mean he did it, but I hardly think that makes the people who believe him to be guilty, "filthy", that's plenty of room for suspicion if you ask me.

Ismail: I don't mean when they started comming out, I mean when the events which were claimed to have happened took place. As far as I know none of them were claimed to have occured before his change

ismail is gay

...and if justice hasn't been served Jacko will be serving me Jesus juice when I make way down to the snowball melting place upon my tempestuous demise.

I don't think he was ever guilty! People just know that they can get a load of money off him so they start the lies based on the fact he loves kids. Alot of people love kids! You don't see nursery teachers being hauled into court do ya? Lol. People should just leave him alone, no wonder he's a nervous wreck! Lotsa luv, Gem xx

As I've always said, there's no smoke without fire and things never go to court unless here is something wrong.

One woman's testimony is never enough to take a case to court and this did go all the way.

Guilty or not guilty? Irrelevant. You won't be seeing many kids in Neverland anymore. If he was guilty then it's a good thing, if he's innocent then at least the Pinnochio-esque fair ground has been shut down at last.

i agree with what bob said!

~PLP~ lil slam~

I don't think "just because of his love for children" can be used as an argument. It wasn't because of his love for children you guys, it was because of his unusual interest in them.
And it wasn't just one woman's testimony, it was many, many claims. Whether or not those claims were true, we might never know.

I believe he was innocent! They had no DNA and really no evidence. Think of all the millions of children that have visited and stayed at his home. Why have only a few come forward with these accusations? It's awlays someone looking for a pay off. Michael Jackson is different I have to admit but he wasn't able to have a childhood. I think the jury made the right decision!

"Why have only a few come forward with these accusations?"

Not a good argument. michael admitted to paying off numerous families not to accuse him of child molestation.

True he did admit to that. He didn't need the bad publicity he never admitted to committing the act. It doesn't take long for word to get out and people see dollar signs. Without DNA there is no case. It's very hard not find any DNA evidence. If the act was committed then there would be some DNA evidence somewhere. Now OJ I fully believe was guilty.

Brooke-Just because a sexual predator does not fully rape the child or ejaculate while proceeding with the crime, does not mean that they did not commit the act.

The child does not have to be fully raped. DNA is detected in many ways. They didn't find as much as a hair. I think the guy is weird and all I just feel with the amount of kids that have visited over the years there would be tons of cases. If my child was raped I would not stop until something was done. These people were willing to take cash. I feel that a lot more people would have come forward and each case had so much time in-between. I would not take a cash pay off I would be out for blood. The thing is we will really never know the truth so it's all based on individual beleif.

am also not sure whether or not he did it. I'm just pointing out faults in your arguments.

I am aware that there are other forms of DNA, and there have been plenty of other cases where none had been found. If a sexual predator touched a child inappropriately, does that mean a hair or some other form of physical evidence will be portrayed?

Not to mention, your sources are misinformed. there was hair found. however the boy had been around michael plenty of times so there were numerous ways the the hair could have gotten attached to his clothing.

You made some good points. From what I watched of the case I heard that there wasn't any hair. Hair could be anywhere like you said. I was going to say this would be the first time that I didn't agree with you. I do have to say you made some good points. Like I said we will really never know the truth. So once again we agree.

Ismail I needed a laugh maybe I missed my calling.
A case like this with no proof we are all going to have our own opinion. I still believe he is not guilty. It's the fact that you can find fault in everyones arguments. It's sad we will never know the truth.

It truly was a trial of opinion, one's word over another.

One of the jurors, Raymond Hultman said he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys." (Larry King Live) but there was not sufficient evidence to find him guilty on these charges.

He was not found to be Innocent, he was found to be Not Guilty due to reasonable doubt.

Exactly. that's what I said at the beginning.

Michael jackson could have molested other boys, in fact he most likely did. But in this particular case, I think it was a complete hoax (due to mother's actions, lack of evidence...yadyada) I would have acquitted him on this case even if I 100% surely knew that he molested other boys because i believe he did not molest THIS one.
The jury was required to look at this present case and was told to disreguard all other accusations outside of this one. Hence, what he did to the others had nothing to do with this boy, and I think this kid was a prop in a sick attempt to get money.

Even though I think there is a very high probablity he did... each of your reasons are without foundation.

Where is the tape and if the jury saw it, why did they unanimously give a not guilty verdict?

Allegedly is just that, an allegation.

Paying someone to make a case disappear does not make a man guilty.

Fallen, I think your sources are wrong, because there is no existing video tape of Michael molesting a child.

Perhaps you are speaking of the interview tape taken some years ago that Michael had happened to have the accuser in, but there is no tape of michael commiting a crime.

Ismail...that's like saying, "discrimination is over, get over it"

We do not, and will most likely never know the truth about the accusations of Michael Jackson, so we choose to discuss.
Will we come to a conclusion? Odds are, hell no. But these discussions share the same purpose as those who try to disprove/prove God. Merely to indeed discuss.

I dont think MJ is guilty in all account im sure hes done something, but the first mother to make accusations against MJ she said that it was all a lie and ever since she said MJ did something to her son theres been more people saying stuff which I think they just want attention and money, maybe MJ was a little to close to them like he showed them pornography he admitted to doing that so that is something he did wrong but... the molesting I dont think so.

The assumption was there long before this thread came up, Ismail. There was enough evidence to go to trial, just not enough to convict. The phrase 'not guilty' does not mean innocent nor does it make him trustworthy.

Would you allow a sibling or son to sleep over at Jackson's place in his bed?

No, I completely disagree. Just because you knew what was going at that age, does not mean all children do. If an adult, someone to be respected and looked up to (especially in the case of a role model like Jackson), says something is right, and not a bad thing then a lot of children will believe that to be the case.

Teens are still children. Despite the stubborness I see in my sister, who is 13, I can easily manipulate her moods to get her to do her homework, clean the house etc. when I am over at my mum's.

Children have no legal responsability for themselves, parents carry that burden until the child reaches the age of 18.

So, bearing that in mind and weighing up the knowledge you have of the Jackson case, are you still happy to let a sibling or son sleep in Jackson's bed? (You said you wouldn't let a man into your child's bed, which isn't answering my question.)

"would you let a child sleep in Michael Jackson's bed?"

Two answers as to "no" even if I 100% knew that Jackson was innocent
-you know that something is wrong when a 40-something year old grown man wants a child to sleep over at their house. Lack of childhood or not, there's something wrong there
-Just the mere accusations of what Michael has or hasn't done is enough to keep your child away from them. If there is the slightest, slightest, slightest, chance that your child is in danger-no matter how slight-you would not put your child in it. Especially in that case

can't say anything about the first time but after the FIRST TIME what kinda parent would LEAVE THEIR CHILD WITH A PERSON WHO WAS ACCUSED OF CHILD MOLESTATION?????????? Someone answer that please because THAT i don't understand.....ppl these days....full of ignorance AND stupidity.....