NationStates Jolt Archive

Vote your whim! Was Michael Jackson guilty in your esteemed (or steamed) opinion?

Probably.

You know it occurs to me, as long as we have it so that there is a 'spectrum' of guilt, ranging from "guilty" to "innocent" with the purgatorial "not guilty" there should also be a "not innocent" rating. In fact, a whole number system, 1 to 10, with 10 being absolutely guilty and 1 being absolutely innocent, so we could have all shades in between. "The Guiltometer! fun for the whole penal system."

Then I'd rate Mr Jackson at about 8.

On a broad spectrum, I'd say he was, at least, a bit guilty. I was of the opinion that the conspiracy charges would be too much to prove, especially with 28 items or whatever it was and no direct link made to him, but I wasn't expecting him to get off for EVERYTHING. Even the Jesus Juice. I mean, that at least had reasonable amounts of evidence, so I was pretty shocked. As for the big thing (child molestation), not having seen the evidence or testimony in person it's hard to say, but I would think that with as many people that have accused him of it over the years, he'd at least be charged with the lesser offence.

However, I'm not going to go so far as to say that the jury's retarded or that the US legal system is shit, like most people I speak to have. The point isn't whether or not the jury thinks he's innocent, it all lies in reasonable doubt.

Besides, the messiness of the US legal system gives me hope that I can easily slide out of any future legal problems.....

I don't think he molested anyone. However, I have no doubt at all that he looked at porn with them and probably gave them alcohol (and the jury could have dropped to a lesser charge and got him on this last one sans "to commit a felony").

I think the man is a child himself still - and is caught in a weird cross between the two. He is allowed to have porn, drink alcohol, etc - but I think he still looks at it just like a 13-year old himself. I think he brought out porn to look at it with his "buddies" and laugh at it - just like most boys that age would.

Of course, he needs to realize that he is an adult, not a child - and thus should not have gotten off completely. I think he should have at least been convicted of giving alcohol to a minor and possibly lewd acts with a minor (showing them porn) kind of as a warning to him that these behaviors are not really acceptable.

Of course, then again, I wasn't on the jury or in the courtroom.

I think both were guilty.

The mother was guilty of whoring her son out, hoping MJ would molest him so that she could get a big, fat settlement out of him...and, of course, MJ was guilty of actually molesting the kid.

Probably.

You know it occurs to me, as long as we have it so that there is a 'spectrum' of guilt, ranging from "guilty" to "innocent" with the purgatorial "not guilty" there should also be a "not innocent" rating. In fact, a whole number system, 1 to 10, with 10 being absolutely guilty and 1 being absolutely innocent, so we could have all shades in between. "The Guiltometer! fun for the whole penal system."

Then I'd rate Mr Jackson at about 8.


I'm pretty sure in Scotland these is a 3rd verdict of "not proven".

I think both were guilty.

The mother was guilty of whoring her son out, hoping MJ would molest him so that she could get a big, fat settlement out of him...and, of course, MJ was guilty of actually molesting the kid.

From what I heard the jury say afterwards, that's pretty much their thinking. Except they think Jackson shouldn't be held accountable for sticking his hands down children's pants.

Dude, the Myrth option is old. The Melkor option is now mandatory.

Probably.

You know it occurs to me, as long as we have it so that there is a 'spectrum' of guilt, ranging from "guilty" to "innocent" with the purgatorial "not guilty" there should also be a "not innocent" rating. In fact, a whole number system, 1 to 10, with 10 being absolutely guilty and 1 being absolutely innocent, so we could have all shades in between. "The Guiltometer! fun for the whole penal system."

Then I'd rate Mr Jackson at about 8. I'd give him a "9".
While not determined Guilty of a particular Statute, The Gloved One is guilty of "casual paedophilia" by his own admission. Any adult male that admits to having young boys (and only young boys) regularly share his bed should be barred by law from having unsupervised contact with any child. Period.

The same would be true for someone who shared his bed with young girls... the key is in the admitted exclusivity and non-mixed genders during "non-sexual bed sharing".

Any parent that allows such unsupervised conduct between a 40 y/o non-parental-relative should be indicted for Child Endangerment.

I just think he is a perv and he is nasty in many ways. He should be rotting in jail not running around free. :sniper:

Once again the Joke we call an American Legal system has let off the famous for a crime the unknown or poor would spend decades in jail for. OJ, MJ, it's all the same, a bunch of famous punks thinking they're untouchable.

Let freedom ring for the rich, and screw Joe Average.

What about 'Terminally Creepy'?

Once again the Joke we call an American Legal system has let off the famous for a crime the unknown or poor would spend decades in jail for. OJ, MJ, it's all the same, a bunch of famous punks thinking they're untouchable.

Let freedom ring for the rich, and screw Joe Average.

I was just reading in Forbes that the conviction rate in that county is 87 percent, and in California it's 85 percent for felonies.

Looks like rich people, on the other hand, are perfectly free to do anything they like.

I was just reading in Forbes that the conviction rate in that county is 87 percent, and in California it's 85 percent for felonies.

Looks like rich people, on the other hand, are perfectly free to do anything they like.

Maybe defendents should have to wear bags over their heads and always be referred to as Joe Shmoe or something. And arrest should be kept secret, so that the media doesn't jump on the band wagon. Of course, under this system, if the jury looked at MJ's hands and frame they would think hes a frail white woman. Maybe they should wear those big HAZMAT suits instead.

dp

lol - I picked the jury option because in teh end that is all that matters


It's amazing how those of you who need absolute undeniable evidence when someone says Bush (or someone to your ) did even the slightest thing wrong and will defend his innocence with so much ferver (and I happen to agree that that is what you should do), yet you are willing to bet MJ is guilty without a shred of evidence and wouldn't care if the jury found him guilty (don't try to pretend otherwise), and when people say "No way, he was innocent", you would point to the jury's decision and hold it up as ultimate truth. Some of you people only seem to think the legal system isn't worthless when they agree with your opinion. *sleepy and probably not making sense*

I think both were guilty.

The mother was guilty of whoring her son out, hoping MJ would molest him so that she could get a big, fat settlement out of him...and, of course, MJ was guilty of actually molesting the kid.
IMO...
there is a 99% probability of guilt for Janet Arvizo.
and
there is a 25% probability of guilt for Jacko the Wacko.

IMO...Jacko is a loon, drugs and alcohol have eaten most of his brain.
but... is he a child molester? I need to see the evidence...and only the jury got to see that.

The options in my poll were conveying what I thought of the situation, not trying to gather statistics. The selections on this one are better at that, but that was never my intention.

lol - I picked the jury option because in teh end that is all that matters


It's amazing how those of you who need absolute undeniable evidence when someone says Bush (or someone to your ) did even the slightest thing wrong and will defend his innocence with so much ferver (and I happen to agree that that is what you should do), yet you are willing to bet MJ is guilty without a shred of evidence and wouldn't care if the jury found him guilty (don't try to pretend otherwise), and when people say "No way, he was innocent", you would point to the jury's decision and hold it up as ultimate truth. Some of you people only seem to think the legal system isn't worthless when they agree with your opinion. *sleepy and probably not making sense*

I only needed to see him say in that video that he sleeps with little boys, and that he does it on a regular basis, and that he does it as a "loving act". Add the porn magazines he was showing them, and I would vote guilty.

Really, you would let your kid sleep overnight in his bed? Really?

The options in my poll were conveying what I thought of the situation, not trying to gather statistics. The selections on this one are better at that, but that was never my intention.I like more the options in Your POLL...

WL has broken forum rule (copycat rules)...but its no big deal anyways.

Really, you would let your kid sleep overnight in his bed? Really?WL, I would never ever let my kids sleep in YOUR bed...(if i had kids)

but that does not make you a Child molester...does it?

WL has broken forum rule (copycat rules)...but its no big deal anyways.

I don't mind, I think this is the first time a thread of mine has been "improved" (and I've been here since early 2003, despite my "join date").

In my own opinion he's not guilty. See there wasn't actual evidence in court room or outside the court room. People just judge to much about certain issues that never happened.

WL, I would never ever let my kids sleep in YOUR bed...(if i had kids)

but that does not make you a Child molester...does it?

If you were sleeping with boys ages 10 to 12, and showing them porn, I don't need a magic mirror to tell me you're a pedophile.

If you were sleeping....you are not answering my question ...spinBoy :D

you are not answering my question ...spinBoy :D

That's because your question selectively avoided the topic - which was that he was already previously accused, and already admitted to near-sexual encounters on a regular basis with boys.

I like to find whatever prick decided that "sleep with" should mean the same thing as "have sex with"...

Really, you would let your kid sleep overnight in his bed? Really?WL, I would never ever let my kids sleep in YOUR bed...(if i had kids)

but that does not make you a Child molester...does it?If you were sleeping...*snipyou are not answering my question ...spinBoy :DThat's because your question...My question is:
I would never ever allow my kids to sleep in your bed...does that makes you a Child Molester?

since you do not want to answer...i will.

No, it does not make you a Child Molester...

I would never allow my Child to stay overnight at your place or at Jacko's (or any strager s bed)...its called common sense

I think he should have been found guilty for distribution of alcohol to minors, but the molestation charges reeked too heavily of fraud on the mothers part.

Regardless, Jackson should learn his lesson this time. Stay the hell away from little boys you idiot! You got off once with a settlement, and again with a trial. Just stay away. Its that simple for him.

I only needed to see him say in that video that he sleeps with little boys, and that he does it on a regular basis, and that he does it as a "loving act". Add the porn magazines he was showing them, and I would vote guilty.

Really, you would let your kid sleep overnight in his bed? Really?

Some points I will make:

Well if you are going to jump to conclusions then stop putting others down when they jump to conclusions or you are a hypocrite.

I haven't been paying attention to the trial so I never saw the part where he said he shares his porno with little kids.

We have babysat my fiances little girl and even shared our bed with her and all slept in the same bed at naptime. Plus we have lots of porn in our house... much of it gay porn. I never shared the porno with her, but she did get into our stuff and find some magazines, despite them being hidden in the closet.

Am I now a child molester?

I would never have kids because personally I don't think this is a good world to bring any being into, but if I did have kids I wouldn't send him/her/them off to some wierdos house whether they had a history of being accused of child molestation or not. It is absolute negligence on the parents part to have sent their kid to Jacksons knowing th history of accusations against him.

But besides that, why haven't the multitudes of other kids that stayed at Jacksons come forward about this? Why are they all on Jacksons side? IF he traumatized them (which it seems any form of close contacts with Jackson would cause), what woudl they have to gain from covering for him? Wouldn't they also want to see him punished for his crimes against them?

Thats all I am going to say about this except that I'm happy to believe that all those kids that stayed at MJ's neverland ranch were probably not molested. IF they were then I believe that he will get what is coming to him karmically.

I think he served them some achohol, but that's about it, and not so he could molest them. And acorrding to someone else who was there(An adult), they found the porno when he stepped out of the room to do something(I can't remember what though.). And I mean it's not like the kid has lied in court before. Oh wait, yes he has. And how is his mom not on therapy, or in a loony bin? "It's a conspiracy! They're trying to kill me!" But in the end, the really sad thing is, is that if some random guy off the street molested ten kids, no one would care.

Vote your whim! Was Michael Jackson guilty in your esteemed (or steamed) opinion?
The US system of justice has spoken and has found Michael Jackson not guilty. If the prosecution wishes, they can appeal the decision?

In the meantime, this poll will not make him guilty and is asking people to make choices based on what they have read. The people who had access to ALL the facts (the jurists) found him not guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt....who are we to judge?

I believe that Jackson was probally guilty of it on various occaisons, but I agree with the jury's decision. There simply wasn't enough evidence this time.

The US system of justice has spoken and has found Michael Jackson not guilty. If the prosecution wishes, they can appeal the decision?

In the meantime, this poll will not make him guilty and is asking people to make choices based on what they have read. The people who had access to ALL the facts (the jurists) found him not guilty beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt....who are we to judge?

We're free to have an opinion on the case, even if it doesn't amount to anything, and it doesn't matter if our opinions and pontification displease you in the extreme.

I'm going to say he probably did touch a kid or two. Even if he didn't he needs to be smacked and told that you just don't do that sorta crap with other people's kids while unsupervised none the less. And the mothers need to be slapped. And that specific mother was just out for money I think. And she needs to be charged with child endangerment.

..And the mothers need to be slapped. And that specific mother was just out for money I think. And she needs to be charged with child endangerment.i find it interesting that the US media almost never mention the name of the Mother...

and yes she needs to be bitchSlapped...send her to London :D

i find it interesting that the US media almost never mention the name of the Mother...

and yes she needs to be bichSlaped...send her to London :D

Rumor has it that Michael Jackson will be moving to Europe - permanently.

I wonder what the pedophile laws are in the various EU countries.

To all the little boys in CA:

You can't say the pledge in class,

or own a decent firearm with more than 10 rds in the box.

But it's sure as fuck legal for Michael Jackson to pound you in the ass!

If you were sleeping with boys ages 10 to 12, and showing them porn, I don't need a magic mirror to tell me you're a pedophile.

Unless of course, you are mentally 12 yourself.

Would you accuse a 12-year old who slept in a bed with another boy age 10-12 and showed him porn of being a pedophile?

Unless of course, you are mentally 12 yourself.

Would you accuse a 12-year old who slept in a bed with another boy age 10-12 and showed him porn of being a pedophile?

No, but I would be kicking his ass, followed by a visit to the psychiatrist.

No, but I would be kicking his ass, followed by a visit to the psychiatrist.
are you allowed to beat someone elses kid?..

heck... you are not even supossed to beat your own kid

are you allowed to beat someone elses kid?..

heck... you are not even supossed to beat your own kid

Hypothetical:

You go into your 12 year old daughter's room, and find my 13 year old son in her bed. Both are naked. On the table is an open copy of Penthouse magazine.

Still think you won't kick his ass?

Unless of course, you are mentally 12 yourself.

Would you accuse a 12-year old who slept in a bed with another boy age 10-12 and showed him porn of being a pedophile?
And you don't allow 12 year olds to have sleepovers without adult supervision.

If the Gloved One is mentally 12, then he needs to be monitored by an adult - for his and other's safety.

Whether or not he molested (much less buggered) these kids is immaterial. 40 y/o men shpuld not be having unsupervised sleepovers. Even the Cub Scouts require more than one adult be present during campout/sleepover events.

He admitted to what, in every other situation, woud be considered paedophilia. He may not deserve Jail for it, but he most certainly not be allowed unsupervised contact with children.

Hypothetical:

You go into your 12 year old daughter's room, and find a 13 year old kid in her bed. Both are naked. On the table is an open copy of Penthouse magazine.

Still think you won't kick his ass?*edited for better impact*If I was the 13 years old boy(or his Dad)...you would be criminally charged...and if have it my way...you make it all the way to Jail.

The jury is the most informed group of people, they know a lot more about the evidence than we do. I must respect their decision. I find him creepy, and that makes many people sure that he must be a molester, but being creepy is not a crime.

If I was the 13 years old (or his Dad)...you would be criminally charged...and if have it my way...you make it all the way to Jail.

Probably not around here.

Probably not around here.North Virginia?
where the Laws are "just kidding"?

the part that disturbs me (even though i dont have a problem with the jury's verdict) is that he was found not guilty because his accuser comes from a bad family. the boy and his mother have too much baggage to be credible

but cant a liar be molested? dont bad things happen to bad people too? is it OK to molest a kid from a bad family??

IF michael jackson is a pedophile, then he is actively targeting children from bad families. children who will never be believed because of who their parents are. sure the boy's mom was hoping for a big payday but does that mean it didnt happen? does that somehow make it OK?

there is no way to know what happened behind closed doors between people who have no credibility.

North Virginia?
where the Laws are "just kidding"?

There's a little thing called temporary insanity.

the part that disturbs me (even though i dont have a problem with the jury's verdict) is that he was found not guilty because his accuser comes from a bad family. the boy and his mother have too much baggage to be credible

but cant a liar be molested? dont bad things happen to bad people too? is it OK to molest a kid from a bad family??

IF michael jackson is a pedophile, then he is actively targeting children from bad families. children who will never be believed because of who their parents are. sure the boy's mom was hoping for a big payday but does that mean it didnt happen? does that somehow make it OK?

there is no way to know what happened behind closed doors between people who have no credibility.


good post and exactly what I was thinking - Jackson not got off because they thought he was innocent but because they couldnt prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty

if Jackson did molest Gavin Arviso then a message is being sent that it's fine to molest a kid as long as he comes from a shitty family

I think if the kidnapp charges (of whatever they were) had been left off and that the Arviso mother had been left off the stand that Jackson would be now residing in jail tbh

do I think that jackson is guilty?

I am not totally sure but I know one thing he wouldnt be let within 5 miles of my son because as far as I am concerned someone doesnt fork out 20 million if they are innocent and lets face it Jackson has bought at least 2 others off to keep them quiet before

And you don't allow 12 year olds to have sleepovers without adult supervision.

If the Gloved One is mentally 12, then he needs to be monitored by an adult - for his and other's safety.

I would absolutely agree with this. He should be.

I am not totally sure but I know one thing he wouldnt be let within 5 miles of my son because as far as I am concerned someone doesnt fork out 20 million if they are innocent and lets face it Jackson has bought at least 2 others off to keep them quiet before

Theres another issue too- where is this boy's father? If I truly believed that my son was molested by him, Michael Jackson's heart would have stopped beating a long time ago.

Theres another issue too- where is this boy's father?
Profile: The Arvizo family

The credibility of 15-year-old cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo and his mother Janet was key to the case against Michael Jackson, who has been acquitted of child abuse and abduction charges by a California court.

Janet Arvizo at the trial of Michael Jackson
The accuser's mother Janet Arvizo proved to be an explosive witness

The defence sought to portray the boy and his family as dishonest gold-diggers who saw Mr Jackson as a celebrity fall guy to be milked for cash.

Janet Arvizo proved to be a loose cannon and one of the most explosive witnesses in the case with her erratic courtroom outbursts.

The many faces of her son - downcast and ghostly in a police interview, or fresh-faced and confident in documentary footage - gave the jurors a compelling dilemma.

But what emerged above all was a sad picture of a family fragmented, and of a teenage boy - still with serious health problems - laying himself open in a case seen all over the world.

Father assaulted mother

Gavin Arvizo comes from a troubled background.

His mother remarried in 2004 - to US Army Major Jay Jackson - following an acrimonious divorce from her previous husband, 37-year-old lorry driver David Arvizo.

Mr Arvizo lost custody of the teenager, his younger brother and older sister after admitting an assault on Janet Arvizo.

The trial heard how the father was persistent in begging celebrities for money after Gavin was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer in 2000, which required the boy's spleen and left kidney to be removed.

It was in that year that Gavin first met Michael Jackson, introduced to the star by Jamie Masada, owner of The Laugh Factory in Hollywood.

'Jesus juice'

Gavin claimed the abuse started after his appearance with Mr Jackson in the British documentary by Martin Bashir - filmed in 2002 and aired in 2003.

He said it was after the interview that Mr Jackson started serving him and his younger brother wine, which he claimed the singer called "Jesus juice", and began making sexual advances.

But defence lawyers were able to put a number of dents in Gavin's credibility as a witness.

It emerged that the boy, and his younger brother and older sister, had taken acting lessons ahead of a 2001 lawsuit against US retailer JC Penney.

The boy himself said Mr Jackson broke his heart by rejecting him as a friend, and defence lawyers suggested the accusations were a case of revenge.

In separate interviews with a social worker and a teacher after the airing of the Bashir documentary, Gavin denied he had been molested by Mr Jackson.

Prosecutors said this was because he wanted to put an end to the teasing he was enduring in the wake of the film.

The low, downcast demeanour of the boy in a powerful video shown at the very end of the case, in which he haltingly described the alleged abuse, was a powerful boost to his case.

'Are you Catwoman?'

From the outset of the trial, Janet Arvizo proved to be a mercurial character.

She rarely gave a straight answer to any of the defence's questions thrown at her in court, often replying using a repetitive array of words and phrases.

Among her favourites were "It's burned inside my memory" and "Money doesn't buy happiness".

At times she drew laughter from the courtroom - often directed at her - as in the time she tried to explain she was acting in the so-called rebuttal video.

"You are not going to call Halle Berry and say, 'Are you Catwoman?'," she said in response to questioning.

She was accused of exploiting her cancer-stricken son for money. Defence witnesses said she had concealed sources of income while receiving welfare cheques.

It was also suggested that she spent $7,000 (£3,800) shopping and dining out at the same time as she alleged Mr Jackson kept her and her family captive.

Now their claims about Mr Jackson's behaviour have been rejected by a jury, their motives for making the allegations against the singer will come under close scrutiny in the coming weeks.

© 2005 BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/feedback.shtml

the part that disturbs me (even though i dont have a problem with the jury's verdict) is that he was found not guilty because his accuser comes from a bad family. the boy and his mother have too much baggage to be credible
but cant a liar be molested? dont bad things happen to bad people too? is it OK to molest a kid from a bad family?? IF michael jackson is a pedophile, then he is actively targeting children from bad families. children who will never be believed because of who their parents are. sure the boy's mom was hoping for a big payday but does that mean it didnt happen? does that somehow make it OK? there is no way to know what happened behind closed doors between people who have no credibility.good post and exactly what I was thinking - Jackson not got off because they thought he was innocent but because they couldnt prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty if Jackson did molest Gavin Arviso then a message is being sent that it's fine to molest a kid as long as he comes from a shitty family I think if the kidnapp charges (of whatever they were) had been left off and that the Arviso mother had been left off the stand that Jackson would be now residing in jail tbh do I think that jackson is guilty? I am not totally sure but I know one thing he wouldnt be let within 5 miles of my son because as far as I am concerned someone doesnt fork out 20 million if they are innocent and lets face it Jackson has bought at least 2 others off to keep them quiet beforeAye, there's the Rub:
In general, Criminals like "easy" targets. I think that were you to look at the compiled data of all non-famillial paedophilia cases, you would find that a majority of the victims come from disfunctional backgrounds - i.e children looking for a friend/loving touch not recieved at home.. all too easy to make that "loving touch" just a bit too personal... ("Normal" children would scream and run like mad...) By making the "credibility" of the family a mitigating standard - while denying the validity of MJ's prior abuse claims, payoffs and admissions of "compromising" behavior, they have set a BAD precident, because, exactly as you say, all an accused non-famillial molester has to walk do is show the court the victim's disfunctional family and intimate that they are inveterate liars. :mad:

But if a child was molested by Michael Jackson they'll be ashamed to talk to anyone. That further the extent that none of the children talked during this trial. See thats why there is no evidence in the Michael Jackson Trial to fine and/or send him to jail. But there is still a possibility that Michael Jackson Molested a innocent child. Michael Jackson molesting a child is just a rumor for right now...
Who knows we may catch him in the act! For right now we have to stay cool. :cool:

there is no way to know what happened behind closed doors between people who have no credibility.there is no way to know what happens in YOUR bedroom with you children...

there is no way no know what happens in any bedroom..anywhere...

shall we bring every adult to court?

credibility?...ok lets assume that her credibility was not previosly damaged.

Lets assume for a second that MJ is not a child Molester...and lets assume that Janet Arvizo did not have a JCPenney civil lawsuit record...lets assume that MJ was Arvizo first victim...

MJ would be would be in Jail...the fact that it was "his word VS her word" would not matter...he would be charged and convicted in a hearthbit.