Jackson Jury

[c double]

guilty or not guilty\

i'll start

not guilty

not guilty.

[Dribbles]

not guilty

[dBu]

You guys can't possibly be serious.


GUILTY AS SIN

[Adam D]

Not Guilty.

[Funkenstein]

Is this a personal poll or what we think or what we think the outcome of the jury's decision will be?

You'll get a vote of "Not Guilty" on both from me.

It isn't out of blind loyalty or even a sense of understanding the man (because Michael Jackson doesn't even understand himself it seems), but due to the fact that for the same card to be played twice shows stupidity on two parts:

1. Michael Jackson for still allowing children to be in that close proximity to his person without outside supervision in order to avoid further accusation and

2. The "possibly" money hungry parents not believing that their past history of wanting/scamming for more than they have ever coming to light (especially in the manner that it did).



To quote the recently deceased: "If it don't fit, you must acquit."

[dBu]

Whatever. He is a pedophile freak. The only thing that screwed him this time is that he did not have another $20 million dollars to pay off his victim. He spent all his cash on the previous ones. I hope he rots in prison.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by dBu

Whatever. He is a pedophile freak. The only thing that screwed him this time is that he did not have another $20 million dollars to pay off his victim. He spent all his cash on the previous ones. I hope he rots in prison.

I'm with Brian on this one, the evidence against him is terrible. Even if you believe he has done it in the past, nothing substantiates the claim this time around. Neither the alleged victim nor his brother could substantiate very valid claims that it actually happened. Inconsistencies were abound. The mother was the worst part...she claimed all these things happened, but they were all proven to be untrue. She's a con artist, and they tried scamming other celebrities, a radio station, and a department store I can't recall the name of. Her own lawyer called her a nut.

[Satchel]

I think not guilty, the juries on these high profile cases always get it wrong


The way I see it if he even had a kid in his bed again unsupervised he is fucking guilty enough for me.

[F.N.A.]

He's guilty as hell, but I simply don't think he will be convicted.

For you Not Guilty's out there, that would mean that ALL of these people are lying, including 2 doctors, numerious people who would have absolutely nothing to gain by lying (flight attendants), and a California police officer and K9 handler who was hired to provide security. Who does he have to molest before you guys will believe he is guilty?


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


Not to mention he fits the profile of a pedophile.

-Feels like they didnt have a childhood - CHECK!

-Cannot relate to adults their own age - CHECK!

-Relates better with children- CHECK!

-Fills home with objects that attract children such as toys CHECK!

-Preys on disfunctional families- CHECK!

-Describes children as "innocent, pure," -CHECK!

-Who have boy to boy relations- CHECK!

-Homosexual pornography depecting adolescent males- CHECK!

He claims he had such a bad childhood, but that would mean that Jermaine, Tito, and Marlon all had a horrible childhood since they all travelled, rehersed, and performed together. You don't see Tito or Jermaine sleeping with kids. Micheal is trying to use that as an excuse for his illegal behavior.

On another note, even if he is convicted, I believe that the judge commited reversible error in this case, and Micheal has an almost guaranteed appeal.

[Adam D]

Originally Posted by F.N.A.

He's guilty as hell, but I simply don't think he will be convicted.

For you Not Guilty's out there, that would mean that ALL of these people are lying, including 2 doctors, numerious people who would have absolutely nothing to gain by lying (flight attendants), and a California police officer and K9 handler who was hired to provide security. Who does he have to molest before you guys will believe he is guilty?

I think there's reasonable doubt on the actual molestation charge. Maybe he did give the kid alcohol, maybe he even showed him some porn...but the grounds for the molestation are very shaky.

Guilty.
But I'm in agreement with Adam as to why.

[F.N.A.]

Originally Posted by Adam D

I think there's reasonable doubt on the actual molestation charge. Maybe he did give the kid alcohol, maybe he even showed him some porn...but the grounds for the molestation are very shaky.

What about the adolescent male porn that was found at Jacko's residence. If he wasn't getting off on looking at little boys then why would he have something like that?

[--)Ordos(--]

Originally Posted by Adam D

I think there's reasonable doubt on the actual molestation charge. Maybe he did give the kid alcohol, maybe he even showed him some porn...but the grounds for the molestation are very shaky.

that screams pediphile to me

[Ricky Tan]

Hey, Hey Don't forget their is about 10 counts against him. He could be found guilty on somethin especially lewd conduct.