By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Music - Do you think Michael Jackson was guilty?

 

Do you think he was guilty

Yes 18 41.86%
 
No 20 46.51%
 
Not sure 5 11.63%
 
Total:43

He was as guilty of being a pedo as OJ and Casey Anthony were of murder.

Aka guilty as fuck



Around the Network
CourageTCD said:

He was not guilty. The FBI investigated him for more than a decade, they broke into Michael's private rooms, drawers, folders and valts without any permission and found nothing. The media couldn't find any concrete proof against him. The accusations were flawed and contradictory. Some people just took advantage to the fact Michael was excentric and liked being around children and used that to take money from him

These are all of the common things said by his fans. The fbi did not investigate him for a decade. They did some support for other law enforcement, but he was not under consistent investigation for over a decade. Evidence was found, evidence is needed to go to trial, if there was absolutely no evidence a trial would not have happened. Also abuse like this is extremely hard to prove with a very small percentage of cases ending in conviction.



pikashoe said:
CourageTCD said:

He was not guilty. The FBI investigated him for more than a decade, they broke into Michael's private rooms, drawers, folders and valts without any permission and found nothing. The media couldn't find any concrete proof against him. The accusations were flawed and contradictory. Some people just took advantage to the fact Michael was excentric and liked being around children and used that to take money from him

These are all of the common things said by his fans. The fbi did not investigate him for a decade. They did some support for other law enforcement, but he was not under consistent investigation for over a decade. Evidence was found, evidence is needed to go to trial, if there was absolutely no evidence a trial would not have happened. Also abuse like this is extremely hard to prove with a very small percentage of cases ending in conviction.

He wasn't investigated continiously for more than a decade, but was in two differents points more than a decade apart, which is still something to be considered. And the evidences brought up by the plainfitt were just weak, not enough for him to be found guilty of any of the 10 counts he was indicted: Jackson was indicted on four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation, one count of conspiring to hold the Arvizo family captive and conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction. There were a lot of accusiation and not a single one of them were proven to have happened



CourageTCD said:
pikashoe said:

These are all of the common things said by his fans. The fbi did not investigate him for a decade. They did some support for other law enforcement, but he was not under consistent investigation for over a decade. Evidence was found, evidence is needed to go to trial, if there was absolutely no evidence a trial would not have happened. Also abuse like this is extremely hard to prove with a very small percentage of cases ending in conviction.

He wasn't investigated continiously for more than a decade, but was in two differents points more than a decade apart, which is still something to be considered. And the evidences brought up by the plainfitt were just weak, not enough for him to be found guilty of any of the 10 counts he was indicted: Jackson was indicted on four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation, one count of conspiring to hold the Arvizo family captive and conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction. There were a lot of accusiation and not a single one of them were proven to have happened

Two of the jurors said they thought he was guilty but were pressured into aquitting. As I said earlier these are extremely hard to prove fully, and rarely end in a conviction. There are about a dozen other accusers, some of which are awaiting trial. All these people spent a lot of time with MJ. We know he spent a lot of time alone with these children. If it was anyone other than MJ this would be a huge issue. 



pikashoe said:
CourageTCD said:

He wasn't investigated continiously for more than a decade, but was in two differents points more than a decade apart, which is still something to be considered. And the evidences brought up by the plainfitt were just weak, not enough for him to be found guilty of any of the 10 counts he was indicted: Jackson was indicted on four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation, one count of conspiring to hold the Arvizo family captive and conspiring to commit extortion and child abduction. There were a lot of accusiation and not a single one of them were proven to have happened

Two of the jurors said they thought he was guilty but were pressured into aquitting. As I said earlier these are extremely hard to prove fully, and rarely end in a conviction. There are about a dozen other accusers, some of which are awaiting trial. All these people spent a lot of time with MJ. We know he spent a lot of time alone with these children. If it was anyone other than MJ this would be a huge issue. 

These two jurors said they were pressured by the other jurors and the other jurors said they were lying. It's these two juror's words against all the others. Even if they were really thinking MJ should have been convicted, they were still in minority and MJ would still be considered not guilty. As for these extremely hard to prove you mentioned, which one were you talking about? The molestiong a minor count, the intoxicating a minor to molest him, the attempted child molestation, the conspiration to hold a whole family captivite or extortion? Or you're telling me that all of these accusations are extremely hard to prove true?



Around the Network

No. I truly believe he loved the kids , like they were his own family. Those who think he's guilty have no clue on his upbringing and the person it made him, his intentions.

From a psychiatric point of view, he would be the last person to commit the accusations against him



I actually don't think that he was. He had such a fucked up childhood and a weird life after that, that he was just eccentric because of all that. He didn't recognize how inappropriate some of the things he did seemed to other people. He was also very easy to take advantage of, and some people definitely just made up things to suck money from him. In many cases, it is easier to just pay up than to drag things out, that doesn't mean that there were wrongdoings going on. One's reputation takes a hit regardless of whether they win a case or not, because doubts will always linger.
Then again, I don't know what really happened, and nobody knows but the people who were in those situations themselves.



CourageTCD said:
pikashoe said:

Two of the jurors said they thought he was guilty but were pressured into aquitting. As I said earlier these are extremely hard to prove fully, and rarely end in a conviction. There are about a dozen other accusers, some of which are awaiting trial. All these people spent a lot of time with MJ. We know he spent a lot of time alone with these children. If it was anyone other than MJ this would be a huge issue. 

These two jurors said they were pressured by the other jurors and the other jurors said they were lying. It's these two juror's words against all the others. Even if they were really thinking MJ should have been convicted, they were still in minority and MJ would still be considered not guilty. As for these extremely hard to prove you mentioned, which one were you talking about? The molestiong a minor count, the intoxicating a minor to molest him, the attempted child molestation, the conspiration to hold a whole family captivite or extortion? Or you're telling me that all of these accusations are extremely hard to prove true?

Where have the other jurors called them liars? I've looked and can't find anything to back up what you're saying. I have found that more of the jurors thought that he did molest other children but there wasn't enough evidence for this specific case. If they continued to vote him as guilty it would have been a hung jury, it needs to be unanimous one way or the other. It's all of the accusers, families and witnesses against MJs word. Yes they all are extremely hard to prove. 

There are more accusers. A kid was able to accurately describe MJs penis. Unidentified Semen was found in his room. Porn was found throughout his home. Nude photos of children were found in his home. His bedroom was alarmed. In the late 70s he spoke about 30 year olds marrying 10 year olds in other cultures in a positive way. Kids fingerprints were found on pornographic material in his house. There are literal photos of him holding half naked kids. He slept in the same bed as children. The letters to Jane Doe saying how in love he was with her. Etc.

Also there are allegations of animal abuse. 



He was accused by at least 4 different people. He paid out at least $15,000,000 in civil court. Doesn't strike me as innocent, granted I didn't follow any of it. But just my 2 cents, one accuser, fine benefit of the doubt. 2, 3, 4, etc... my benefit of the doubt tends to disappear exponentially. Where there is smoke, typically there is fire.



rtx 4090, 32 gb ram, i7-13700k

Switch 2

Chrkeller said:

He was accused by at least 4 different people. He paid out at least $15,000,000 in civil court. Doesn't strike me as innocent, granted I didn't follow any of it. But just my 2 cents, one accuser, fine benefit of the doubt. 2, 3, 4, etc... my benefit of the doubt tends to disappear exponentially. Where there is smoke, typically there is fire.

I think it's actually over 10 accusers at this point.