Do you think Jacko was guilty.....

[A Place of Light]

Originally Posted by Danny

I also don't buy this lost childhood story. Plenty of kids go through the same.

Such as?
Child movie stars don't for a few good reasons.
Firstly, the laws relating to the hours children are allowed to work have been in place for decades.....just not long enough to apply to Jacko when he was a child.
Secondly, child (or even adult) movie stars don't have anywhere near the same workload as their musical counterparts. Back then, they were on the road 24/7/365.
I'm genuinely curious as to who these "plenty of kids who went through the same" are.

Originally Posted by Flibster

Can I put a vote in the 'Couldn't care less' column?

Sorry. He may have been guilty, he may not have been - neither of which affect me.

However, you do care that everyone else is informed that you don't care?
If you're neither affected or have an opinion on it, why post at all?

[killerkebab]

Whether guilty or not something seriously dodgy must have happened for his lawyers to advise him to settle out of court for a frankly monstrous fee. Speaking only for myself, obviously, if I were innocent and accused of such disgusting crimes I'd be defending myself and my name at any costs, not giving out cash to my accuser.

[TinkerBell]

This:

Originally Posted by killerkebab

Whether guilty or not something seriously dodgy must have happened for his lawyers to advise him to settle out of court for a frankly monstrous fee. Speaking only for myself, obviously, if I were innocent and accused of such disgusting crimes I'd be defending myself and my name at any costs, not giving out cash to my accuser.

and this:

Originally Posted by Pebs

As far as the parents taking the money and running thing, I think everyone has a price, everyone. Another point of view is that those parents have brought the accusations to the media spotlight. They know he's going to have the very very best legal help money can buy. Their children/families face what is probably a very lengthy, very public and very dirty court process. Or they can take $20m dollars. I'd be thinking very very carefully, seriously. There's all kinds of justice, not just the legal kind. Do I think this is what happened.....I have absolutely no idea.

I have to agree with the above. I can't decide either way but knowing these two fact's I don't see how anyone can say no for definate. I think it was probably the best move the accuser made to take that money. It makes people doubt MJ but it also means that they can try and protect the kid as much as possible without going to court and bringing it back up.

[Fayshun]

Originally Posted by A Place of Light

If you're neither affected or have an opinion on it, why post at all?

This is why I didn't post.

Oh hang on...

[Pheebs]

Originally Posted by Mark

And there isn't meant to be. The question is what you think, not what a jury might think.

But that is what I think! I don't know and wouldn't be able to say yes or no until I could see all the information!

Personally, I try my best to not judge people I don't know until I have met them myself (or in cases like this, seen all the evidence I can). Obviously hard with celebs and things, but I think this is probably why I have never really ever "fancied" or been "obsessed" with any celeb (other than Captain Jack Sparrow ) or had any strong opinion of them... because what we see of them... say in films/music vids etc... isn't them. We don't know their lives behind closed doors, unless they do some reality tv thing, of which then I think it's all a bit of show and tell isn't it? And then what other information we know about them is provided through the media! I don't plan on taking what I read in newspapers/see on toovd as gospel!

So... I don't know.

[Admiral Huddy]

Whether guilty or not something seriously dodgy must have happened for his lawyers to advise him to settle out of court for a frankly monstrous fee.

Yep - no smoke without fire.. "here's 20m to drop the case!!"

A paedo with some financial and influential clout. If this had been Mr. J. Public, he would be in prison now.

[Will]

No. I think he was mentally backward or certainly had some clinical issues. He hadn't really grown up, and whilst his behaviour for us would be deemed inappropriate I think he was just "playing" as a child with the children and not actually in sexually specific way. He was a tormented soul, but I don't think for one second he was a predator.

[Flibster]

Originally Posted by A Place of Light

However, you do care that everyone else is informed that you don't care?
If you're neither affected or have an opinion on it, why post at all?

Better?

I will get down on my knees and a beg for forgiveness for posting an opinion about someone whose personal life is of no direct impact to me.

[Jonny69]

I just think it's all a bit too far fetched. Voted no.

[Kitten]

Originally Posted by Muban

I don't think he did it. He doesn't fit the type, I think he was still in many ways a child stuck in a mans body. I agree with everything already said really.

There are many people who say why did he pay them off, what kind of an innocent man would do that. To me that is no arguement, there is no way on this earth that any parent I know would take money from someone who abused their child. So why not ask the question what kind of parent would accept money from their childs abuser.

I actually feel very sorry for people who are accused and aquitted, it seems (especially when children are involved) many people see accusation as guilt. He certainly had a very misguided viewpoint of what was and was not normal social behaviour. I don't think that he is guilty of abuse though in any way.

When a 13 year old boy says "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over" it certainly makes you wonder about his motives.

^^

Absolutely what I want to say. Especially the last paragraph. I agree that everyone has a price - but how many of us have taken the easy option and paid someone to fix something that shouldn't have been our problem to fix, just because we wanted an end to it? And if someone kicked my dog, never mind a child, I'd take them to court, and if I lost the case, I lost the case - at least I'd know i did everything I could and at no point did I compromise my integrity by taking cash for something that is just utterly unacceptable.

I think it's absolutely despicable that people are saying things like 'Good, I'm glad the paedo's dead' and things like that when he was acquitted. Just saying he's a padeo is wrong imo. It's disgusting.

As has been said, we don't know what happened - and I was always under the impression that if there was reasonable doubt then the person was considered innocent. I had no idea it was 'once accused then guilty.' I honestly thought we as a society were better than that - however seems I expect too much of people. It's this attitude that has made it so easy for any troublecauser to cry rape or abuse and ruin someone's career on the back of their word.