Do you think Jacko was guilty.....

[Dymetrie]

Originally Posted by A Place of Light

Not really, because the OP requests your opinion and what lead you to form it. To be able to state as a matter of fact his innocence or guilt would've required the person to have been involved with the legal proceedings in depth, but as those people are in somewhat short supply (and almost certainly not members of this forum) I thought that opinions would be just fine.

Well I like to base my opinion on what I actually know. In this case then I don't know enough (and, in my belief, no one other than those involved know enough) to give a yes or no opinion to the OP.

Originally Posted by Greenlizard0

I'm still not really sure, though because of the very fact that the justice system is very vulnerable to how much money you can throw at it. Of course that doesn't answer in anyway whether he's guilty or innocent, a pity really because in an ideal world it'd be great to automatically assume true justice always takes place, and then that would be that.

Originally Posted by Feek

He's as innocent as OJ was.

And another reason why I refuse to give a yes or no opinion, given the way that money can make anyone innocent then the result of the court case can't convince me either way.

Originally Posted by Pheebs

There's no "wouldn't know until I had all the info in front of me" job.

This is a better description of the option I want. My opinion is that I don't care. However, given enough evidence, from either side, then I would make a judgement based on that.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Muban

Somewhat of an unfair question. I wouldn't let anyone I didn't know personally and well (unless they were a professional child carer with references) look after my children (if I had any). So no I wouldn't have, but not because I think he is a child abuser but because I don't know him. I wouldn't let you look after my kids either, purely because I don't know you.

A fair point. You wouldn't want me looking after your kids. I can barely tend to our newborn

Originally Posted by Pebs

He managed to get married twice and have his own children, he's not all that naive is he.

They ain't his kids, they are as white as I am. I know you get the mix sometime where black people end up having a white child but to have three of them? He may bring them up but I'd bet my house there's no jackson dna in them (From a birth point of view)

[Pebs]

Whether they're they're made from his boy juice or not, they're his kids.

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Pebs

Whether they're they're made from his boy juice or not, they're his kids.

Oh yes I know, I just don't see old Wacko as a sexual being at all and I for some reason I can't imagine him having sexual relations with any one or any thing including children. I suspect that if viewed by totally subjectively then some of his behaviour could have been considered borderline unacceptable, like sharing his bed with children but I don't suspect anything that would not be considered unacceptable with his own children.

MB

[Pebs]

Other than dangling them off a balcony? Yeah I know I know, not paedo, but wrong all the same!

[Dunketh]

Originally Posted by Piggymon

Based on what little evidence I have I would say no.

I think he was still a child himself and liked spending time around children. I don't think he had an ulterior motive and could see nothing wrong with letting a child sleep in his bed. He was probably somewhere on the same level.

That said, he had so many people around him who could have stopped this type of behaviour as it is inappropriate.

I guess we'll never know :/

Completely agree.

[semi-pro waster]

I'm going with no, while I think he might well have been borderline inappropriate with the children I don't believe that he abused them as such or that he'd probably even have viewed his behaviour towards them as inappropriate - the question that then raises is whether that would count as an excuse for anything in a hypothetical situation? As has been said there should probably have been some boundaries indicated by those advising him and around him about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

I don't believe he was guilty of all charges levelled against him but he might have been guilty of some I suppose although without more information (which isn't likely to be forthcoming) I can't say for certain.

[BBx]

If you look at older pics of the kids they do actually look like him.

BB x

[loki]

I don't think he was but I have to agree with Dym to some degree.

The thing is that every sleaze bag journo will be doing everything in their power, by fair means or foul to make sure the kids can give 'their side' to the story. The fact that Michael Jackson isn't here to defend himself has nothing to do with it. I think they will make sure he is guilty as charged be it now or in five years time.

Undoubtedly his idea of what was right or wrong must have been distorted by his own upbringing.

[Chuckles]

I suspect he was probably groping the kids but not actually penetrating them.