I haven't watched a shred of coverage. Is Michael Jackson guilty?

[Ladyhawk]

Poll question: I haven't watched a shred of coverage. Is Michael Jackson guilty?

I've always enjoyed MJ's music, probably because it was forbidden to me and my father hated Michael Jackson. Anyone my father hated was intriguing to me. I thought there was a good chance the first molestation case was an attempt to extort money. The second molestation case? I haven't heard any evidence, but any time someone gets in trouble twice for the same offense, I'm starting to doubt their innocence...know what I mean?

I haven't heard one iota of evidence on either side. I don't have TV.

So, tell me is Jackson guilty?

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

1. Its not for me to decide ...

I have lots of other stuff to worry about . If Michael Jackson is found not guilty then hopefully he will learn his lesson and leave children alone . If he is found guilty , I won't be going to jail with him so I could care less . I am not bashing you in anyway :) but I am mad at the media - because we all know that there is a bigger criminal in Washington DC right now , and we all know the address .

Both sides in this case need spankings .

[Ladyhawk]

4. My dear CarolinaPeriodot

That is exactly why I posted this in the lounge. It really has no bearing on anything important, except for the lives that were directly affected either by Jackson's guilt or his innocence.

The only reason I "care" is that I've enjoyed MJ's music. I'm curious. That's all.

And you're right. This should matter that much. The news media's coverage of the OJ Simpson trial made me more prejudiced against black people, professional sports figures and rich people. Instead, I should have become more pissed off at the news media for force-feeding us this crap for so many years.

As for the prejudice thing, I'm relearning a valuable lesson: one man's actions should not lead me to prejudice. Really, it's silly I've had to relearn that lesson so many times. Let's hope this time it takes, eh?

:D

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

8. Wow , the OJ Simpson trial made you more prejudiced against ...

black people, professional sports figures and rich people ? You still don't feel that way , do you ?

I think sometimes I forget that people can still be prejudiced in this day in age . Sometimes having an open mind and accepting all creeds makes me naive - thats why I go into shock whenever I come across situations like that in everyday life . Its something that I am trying to work on : that everybody does not hold the same beliefs as I do .

[Ladyhawk]

11. No, I don't still feel that way. See the other post.

I do, however, have to watch my tendency toward prejudice because I was raised by prejudiced parents in a prejudiced, fundy church and school.

Even when I WAS feeling more prejudice toward black people for awhile, I knew it was wrong. Even though I have that tendency, I absolutely know it's wrong. Knowing it's wrong is half the battle. At least, I hope that is so.

I don't feel that way anymore...absolutely not. :)

[mike_c]

2. I don't have TV either, but had absolutely NO difficulty choosing...

...the rat's buttocks option, as in I don't give one.

[Floogeldy]

3. Um, . . . I'm not on the jury.

How the fuck am I supposed to know?

B-)

[LSdemocrat]

5. Exactly

No one else has the right to make that determination.

[Floogeldy]

7. So true!

B-)

[u4ic]

6. Hardly any coverage north of the border

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[MzShellG]

9. I find it interesting...

That all of these posters are clicking on this thread to say they dont care about Michael Jackson or the outcome of his trial. If you entered the thread, certainly, you must've noticed the title was pertaining to Michael Jackson. Then to go as far as to say who cares, is'nt it a waste of time, energy, and space proceeding to post a reply in this thread about a topic that you dont care about? Obviously, that is sarcasm of some sort, otherwise, what's the point? To speculate on the possible verdict is difficult, since the jury witnessed the entire trial and I didnt. Guess we'll all find out this week.

[KurtNYC]

10. Defense witness Jay Leno says "Jackson's guilty"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/People/Jacksons-guilty-but-accuser-was-coached-Leno/2005/03/17/1110913714866.html?oneclick=true

Leno told cops he had mixed feelings when he found out that the family who hit him up a few years ago was the same one now accusing Jackson of child molestation and false imprisonment.

"Even though I think Michael Jackson is guilty, I still went, um, boy, they finally found a mark," he (Leno) said.

[Bake]

12. You omitted "Guilty as Hell."

Which is what I think the perv is.

To say "I don't know and I don't care" is to say that you really don't care whether justice is done. I, for one, hope justice IS done, despite the defendant's fame and fortune. That's why it matters, to whatever extent that may be. Plus, MJ is a perv.

Bake

[BlueIris]

13. I've never felt there was a valid reason for Michael Jackson to be

tried as a child molestor. I'm with Geraldo Rivera on this.

[Zuni]

14. wha???

1. he was never tried in 1993. He paid off the defendant's family, who were ill at ease with the prospect of putting their 13 year old son through the humiliation of having to go through a trial. Read "All that Glitters", a book about the 1993 case written by the victim's uncle, Evan Chandler.

2. There are very valid reasons MJ should be tried as a child molester, namely, he probably has molested children. There are many witnesses and many accusers as well as an enormous amount of circumstantial and behavioral evidence to support this.

3. geraldo Rivera is a giant fucking douchebag

[Bunny]

15. When was he tried the first time?

Oh, and Geraldo IS a big giant douchebag.

[BlueIris]

16. Post edited. It might have been more accurate for me to post that

I don't think there is any credible evidence that he molested children.

[BearClaws]

17. Well,

First off I truly despise child molesters.
I haven't followed this case real closely, however from what I see in the media, I believe that he might get convicted of giving alcohol to a minor, but not much else.
The credibility of his accuser's family is too big of a question here, they have an ugly history of fraud and extortion..
Who knows?, maybe he knew that.
He is definitely one weird duck and in my opinion probably has crossed the line somewhere along the way.
In this case, there just isn't enough to lock him up, and he should walk because of that.