Poll: Do you think Michael Jackson should have been convicted?

whoo hoo first post. My first court case to watch live, i prefer judge judy.

the prosecution was only partially true. maybe all a lie. but we can all agree that jackson is a pedophile. I wouldnt want him in my bed��

We can't all agree to that.� Well, maybe the, "I wouldn't want him in my bed," part.� Pedophile is a very serious brand to hang on someone, and nothing has ever been proven.�

My usual rule is to not second guess a jury. They heard all the evidence, I didn't. He was acquitted, that doesn't mean he's innocent, mearly that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

But there will probably be a civil suit. They have all the evidence they need to sue his ass off.

A perfect example is OJ Simpson. He was declared not guilty in a criminal trial, but he was successfully sued for two counts of wrongful death in a civil suit.

While I wasn't exactly devoting my attention to this case, from what I did hear, it didn't sound like the prosecution had much of a case. It is a shame, because it seems fairly likely that he's been guilty of it in the past, but I honestly found the acquittal to be a bit reassuring. He'd been convicted in the eyes of the media/public since before the trial even took place, but because there was reasonable doubt, he was found not guilty.
If he was guilty in this specific case, then I do feel bad for the family, but I have to wonder just how they could have botched the trial. At this point, with all of the rumors about him, I have the question the parents who let their kids go and visit too.

That said, I'm ready to never hear about him again. His music can stay, but I'm sick of everything else. It worries me that a lot of fairly important music is going to be tainted because so many people have a hard time separating creator from creation. Then again, maybe this'll lead to the freeing of the Beatles collection.

I'll just be glad to not hear any Michael Jackson jokes for a few days. We get it. He likes the little boys and his skin changed. It's not funny anymore. I don't think there was a single original joke during the entire trial.

Huh. I didn't realize I had that much of an opinion.

ETA: I'm not sure what the difference between "Not with the case the prosecution gave" and "No! They made the right choice" is. Whether he did it or not, if it can't be proven then the right choice is to acquit. Even if he was guilty, it would not have been the right choice for them to convict him on a hunch..

thank you. because that's what i think, in a nutshell. and now i don't have to write it all out. :)

ETA: I'm not sure what the difference between "Not with the case the prosecution gave" and "No! They made the right choice" is.

The difference is the issue of innocence, not guilt.� "Not with the case the prosecution gave," implies, "I agree with legally not guilty, but he's far from innocent." "No! They made the right choice," says, "I believe he was wrongly accused."

To be convicted, there has to be no reasonable doubt, and in this case, there was plenty. The jury aren't saying he didn't do it, just that they weren't absolutely certain he did. I think that was the right decision, based on the relatively little I know about the case. Nothing seemed convincing.

But what bothers me more is that there are plenty of cases of child molestation, sexual abuse, etc, all the time, that don't involve famous people, and we never hear about them. That is, we heard about this one, not because a child may have been abused, but because it was Michael Jackson. We'd probably hear about it if he got caught jaywalking, too.

The Jackson case is weird even for a child molestation case. He has been a suspected pedophile for years yet parents continued to trust their children with him and let him share their beds.

As I said in a totally different context, it isn't a good thing to have to say, "but I'm not a pedophile."

yeah, that's what I don't get.... what parent in their right mind would let their kid near him?

Well, I guess "in their right mind" says it all.... but still.

but not only that, how is it that he could see it as OK to do things that most people would consider inappropriate or borderline inappropriate, even if they didn't amount to molestation?

I mean, he had to know that simply sharing a bed with a child would make most people assume there was something worse going on, too.

I don't know if he has the capacity for that. That's part of what makes the whole thing so sad.� Either he's a molester, or he's a damaged and kinda warped guy who has no real concept of society's mores and people's perceptions. No concept of how even if your motives may be innocent, the behaviors are inappropriate and set the kids up for a lot of stress and confusion and to possibly be susceptible to a real predator.

So...it's kind of a lose-lose situation.� I honestly don't know or have a clear instinct as to whether he was guilty or not. But I think either way, something's not quite right and help is needed.

resounding "who gives a rats ass??" ?

*pushes the sky*

dood just creeps me out, though.

I think that there was not a fair trial because he was a celebrity.I think that all the issues were not all bring to hand and not taken seriously because he is famous.