Micheal Jackson - innocent?

Gabriel said:
However, that being said, personally, if you were to ask me would I let a child sleep in his bed - I would not.
Click to expand...

Just curious - what are your criteria for deciding which adults you would let children sleep with?
 
ClubMan said:
Just curious - what are your criteria for deciding which adults you would let children sleep with?
Click to expand...

My answer would be completely dependent on the situation.

A young child crawling into bed with their parents is normal...

I cannot think of any normal situation where it is okay for an adult to sleep with a 13 year old boy - be they parent of the child or not.

The answer to your question lies in societal norms rather than my own specific pov.
 
If I can just swing this discussion back to the topic (i feel a bit scared now though!). The point that came out in the trial that secured my opinion was the fact that Jacko had pornographic / semi-porographic material (books, magazines) showing young boys in states of undress. Jacko always said that sleeping in the beds of young boys had no sexual basis for him and I think alot of people belived this because of the peter pan, child-like persona he put on. But surely the fact that he had these images means he did see young boys in a sexual way and therefore sleeping in the beds of 13 year old boys was not the innocent child-like act he claimed?
 
Darth Vader said:
The point that came out in the trial that secured my opinion was the fact that Jacko had pornographic / semi-porographic material (books, magazines) showing young boys in states of undress.
Click to expand...

Can anybody clarify the specific nature of this material? After all if it was child porn then that in itself would have been a serious offence and none of the charges on which he was acquitted related to the possession of illegal (child porn) material. According to this Telegraph article:

there was scant evidence. Sneddon's search yielded nothing apart from a few mainstream pornographic magazines.
Click to expand...

When it comes to porn I'm not sure what "mainstream" means but I would assume that it does not mean child porn.

(Hope OhPinchy doesn't think I'm "lecturing" poor Darth Vader! :p)
 
Darth Vader said:
the fact that Jacko had pornographic / semi-porographic material (books, magazines) showing young boys in states of undress.
Click to expand...

Admittedly I didn't study the case in forensic detail but my understanding was that the prosecution failed to demonstrate in any meaningful way that these allegations were indeed true.
 
MJ gets a child drunk with wine so that he can share the bed with him
Click to expand...

As far as I know he was also found Not Guilty of the alcohol charges.

-Rd
 
Yes - he was acquitted on all charges including four counts of "Administering an intoxicating agent -- alcohol -- to assist in the commission of child molestation.":
The charges The jury's findings on the 10 felony counts against Michael Jackson:

Count one: Conspiracy involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion, including 28 specific acts between Feb. 1 and March 31, 2003. Verdict: Not guilty.

Counts two through five: Lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. Verdicts: Not guilty.

Count six: Attempt to get a child under age 14 to commit a lewd act upon Jackson between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. Verdict: Not guilty.

Counts seven through ten: Administering an intoxicating agent -- alcohol -- to assist in the commission of child molestation. Verdicts: Not guilty.
Click to expand...
 
Darth Vader said:
The point that came out in the trial that secured my opinion was the fact that Jacko had pornographic / semi-porographic material (books, magazines) showing young boys in states of undress.
Click to expand...

Im with Clubman on this one. The material was "standard" porn. Girlie magazines.

I read this this morning (imdb.com), which I think is interesting with respect to the innocent/not guilty postings yesterday:

The 12 jurors delivered a unanimous verdict at California's Santa Maria courthouse ending a 14 week trial - but two have admitted they believe Jackson probably did molest young boys at his Neverland ranch. Raymond Hultman says, "I feel that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. I cannot believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean, that doesn't make sense to me. But that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case - that's where we had to make our decision. That's not to say he's an innocent man. He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with." Another juror says, "We had a closet full of evidence that always came back to the same thing - it was not enough." Another adds, "We expected some better evidence, something more convincing, but it just wasn't there. You hope that you will find a smoking gun, something you can grab on to one way or another and we had difficulty in finding that." Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez says, "The allegations of past abuse were considered credible to some extent. There are not too many grown up men we know who would sleep with children but we had to base it on the evidence presented to us. There were a lot of things lacking." The jurors claimed the prosecution case was damaged by the mother of Jackson's accuser, who they claim antagonized the jury with theatrical, over-the-top testimony. They also suspected her motives. Rodriguez adds, "As a parent you spend every moment of your day protective of what happens to your children. What kind of mother in her right mind would allow that to happen, to freely volunteer your child to sleep with anyone, not just Michael Jackson, but anyone?"
Click to expand...
 
>>just because a man is found not guilty in a court of law does
>>not mean that he is an innocent man.

>Er - can you explain that please!?

OJ Simpson.
(Who in case there is any doubt in anyones mind was/is guilty).

Courts can find you not guilty in the eyes of the law. But they
don't uncommit the crimes for you. Similarly a court can find you guilty
for something you didn't do, but that doesn't actually make you guilty.

I'm not suggesting MJ was guilty. Just clarifying a point that seemed to cause some confusion.

-Rd
 
The 12 jurors delivered a unanimous verdict at California's Santa Maria courthouse ending a 14 week trial - but two have admitted they believe Jackson probably did molest young boys at his Neverland ranch. Raymond Hultman says, "I feel that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. I cannot believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean, that doesn't make sense to me. But that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case - that's where we had to make our decision. That's not to say he's an innocent man. He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with."
Click to expand...


I think this is one of the strongest reasons why people don't really feel Jacko is innocent...
 
I cannot believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn.
Click to expand...

Sounds very compelling alright. I must remember to move bedroom soon...
 
I cannot believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn.
Click to expand...

Sounds very compelling alright. :lol I must remember to move bedroom soon...
 
I believe that there was reasonable doubt on the part of the jury and I can see why this would be the case as some of the prosecution witnesses were not credible.

Having said that in my opinion I still believe he is capable of molesting children even if this were not the case in this situation. I don't think he should be in the situation of having children share his bed again as it removes the possibility of anything untoward occuring.

I have 2 small children myself and would not allow them to share a bed with anyone except their parents/grandmothers. I believe the parents of children that would allow their child to share a bed with anyone with a suspicion over them of "child molestion" are themselves quilty of neglect.
 
I think the "Michael Jackon is free to sleep with other children" headline of the Herald yesterday and similar media stories is despicable - this is a second trial by the media, with no defence lawyers!

I don't know if Jacko is a child molester. I certainly think that his behaviour and relationships with children is completely inappropriate.

I agree with other posters here that the mothers who allowed their children stay over at Neverland have some blame - why did they do it? Was it to set up a situation where they could sue for money?

I don't think we'll ever find out the full truth of whether Jacko molested children.

I do however think that it makes a mockery of a judicial system if
(a) someone gets cleared of all charges and yet everyone still speaks of him as "guilty";
(b) the jurors go on public record as 2 of them have done saying that they thought he was guilty but couldn't prove it.

The deliberations of the jury should remain confidential.

I would say that Jacko would have a reasonable case for libel, if he was to pursue these jurors through the courts.

And before I am attacked, let me state that I do not approve of Michael Jackson's behaviour at all; it is completely inappopriate. I feel however that if he got a "fair and proper" trial then we should respect the outcome of that trial.

What is the alternative? Trial by media? People taking the law into their own hands? Lynch mobs?
 
Agreed....

He will NEVER been seem as innocent as long as the media is here..
And lets face it, the media is becoming more and more powerful each day...

If the media wanted to create pandemonium on a certain subject it could be done in an instant..

E.G. "Irish Discussion Board condones the behavior of Michael Jackson and opening promotes sleep overs..."

We know that this is not the case but for the average Joe Smoe.. ignorance is bliss and the more you hear a Lie the easier it is to believe it...

Bottom line, he was acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers... that should be that .. nuff said...

he is an entertainer and will NEVER be able to rebuild his career after all of this.. because it will never blow over
 
MonsieurBond said:
(b) the jurors go on public record as 2 of them have done saying that they thought he was guilty but couldn't prove it.

The deliberations of the jury should remain confidential.

I would say that Jacko would have a reasonable case for libel, if he was to pursue these jurors through the courts.
Click to expand...

Trials in the US are to be done public! And the jury has the right (but no obligation) to talk about their deliberations. If they decide to talk about it than their thoughts and process are not reason for M.J. to sue the for lible.

If 2 of them think he was guilty but they could not prove it than that is fair as they did follow the instructions of the judge and said "not guilty" despite giving us a hung jury and a new trial.

Hell I think he is guilty but as the jury said "not guilty" I have to accept that until we hopefully get an apeals court to overturn the verdict.

Or the feds step in and charge him with violation of civil rights of the boys he alledegly missused. Worked in the Rodney King process when the state court said not guilty too.
 
DublinTexas said:
Trials in the US are to be done public! And the jury has the right (but no obligation) to talk about their deliberations. If they decide to talk about it than their thoughts and process are not reason for M.J. to sue the for lible.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected - I heard this (that the jurors are allowed to talk about the deliberations) last night on the Sky Michael Jackson Trial special - didn't know this before. The yanks do things a bit strangely, don't they?

I still think a Retrial by Media is not in anyone's interests - not MJ's, and certainly not for any of the (allegedly) victims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top