Someone was bound to bring this up sooner or later,so i thought it might as well be a fan.for those of u that don't know:
Michael stands accused of child molesting,accused by a 12 year old boy
He's supposed to turn himself in today,because the police dont know where he is.
funny how the boy decides to make this "revealation" just as MJ's new album comes out.
If he's ound guilty,it'll mean 3years in jail.
it'll cost £30000000 to bail him out.
and the boy's family say they're not interested in money-B******S.

so-guilty or not?i think at the minute he's guilty until proven innocent,instead of the other way round. I think innocent,he's a great musician,and i think that by letting sick,dying and poverty stricken children into his home,he's doing a very noble deed.

guilty until proven innocent? he might be many things, but that's not one of them. if anything, he's innocent no matter what. people seem to think that just because he's a great singer doesn't mean that he'd do things like that. why, if he has nothing to hide and has no mental problems, does he keep his mansion locked down so tightly that no one has much of a clue what's in it?

I reserve my judgement til the judge and the jury make thiers.

I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson.... But, acting weird and giving me the creeps isn't a crime.... lol As far as whether or not he molested anyone, I do not know all of the evidence.

I second Mingtea. I have no right to an opinion on this, because I know nothing about the case. In fact, almost nobody knows anything about it. Spastic, what makes you think he's innocent? What makes anyone think he's guilty? We don't know anything about this, so we have no right to make judgments about him.

We only know what we watch on the news and read in the papers, so most of it is propably hyped up bullshit. But on the other hand the police would not be arresting the guy if they did not have EVIDENCE against him. He is being charged with multiple offences and this time around he will not beable to buy himself out of it.

My theory is that he has not phsically hurt the boy(s) but taken sordid pictures of them. Only a matter of time till I am proven right or not.

Whether he is guilty or innocent of this particular crime I believe he is not right in the mind to be an active father to his children, they are going to grow up to be freaks.

i unno... i dont think that it is fair that all thi shas happened to him, especially if he is innocent - shame on the skanky evil accuser if so! but if he did it, then he will get what he deserves! its cruel that he has to suffer these allegations, but to suffer them under complete media scrutiny must be terrible! whether or not he did do anything unsavoury is not my business... that will all unfold in due time!

Fal xXx

The man's from another planet

Why? I don't mean to sound confrontational here (and bear in mind I know nothing about the case, since I haven't been following it). Have the public been given anything in the way of hard evidence?

I find it hard to believe that someone as naive and innocent as him could ever knowingly hurt another human being. That said I don't know anything about the case.

Like most of you, I have no opinion until I hear everything about the case and make my own opinion, but I slightly think more strongly about him being innocent. Although people think his closeness to children is unconventional and odd, that does'nt make him a child molester at all. I don't believe he would do something like that to a child, but the only thing I know of the case is that after raiding his Neverland home, they found no child pornography. Just pictures and videotapes of him riding the rides with kids visiting Neverland, which sounds pretty harmless to me.

I hold my opinion until furthur, if any, information is disclosed publicly.

But, on a personal note, I can't deny that people in general seem to equate adult freindships and interaction with children as perverse and wrong.

Sometimes, it may be true, at times it's all lie crafting.

Time will tell.

Sun Tsu brings up a good point - Michael Jackson enjoying the company of children does not make him a paedophile. It's unusual enough, combined with his unconventional appearance and worthless, unresponsible sensationalist journalism to make an effective character assassination. Think about the damage done to him - no matter the outcome of his trial, this stain upon his character will always remain.

didnt he get accused of this exact same thing like 6 years ago??? and why does there need to be a topic about it?? it seems every time someones famos if they leave there house they have broken a law... it seems everyone wants to put down somone that have gotten some breaks and have some talent, not saying he has talent but theres alot going on in the news with people molesting children and raping people all of them famos. look at it this way there a human the same as everyone else, no ones really fit to judge if they are guilty or innocent on the forum... thats not our jobs and thats not what were here for.

(im not meaning to sound like a jerk )

I feel bad for him. His picture of being handcuffed is all over the place. It really isn't right.

Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation in 1993 (I think... I know I heard on the news that it was about ten years ago). There was a multi-million dollar settlement, followed by the boy refusing to help in a criminal investigation.... So, no charges were brought against him.

I think that the reason a thread was probably started about this is because it is all over the news.... A lot of people are talking about it.... I guess Simply just wandered what all of us think....

I don't think there is some sort of personal vendetta against famous people. I could be wrong (of course)... but I don't think it is. I have never heard of anyone accusing Brad Pitt of molesting a child.... Famous people are just people.... Some of them are nice.... Some of them are not. Some of them break laws.... It's just more "news worthy" when they do it....

I know a girl who was molested by a friend's father.... The man was arrested, but it wasn't in the national news. Nobody knows her.... Nobody knows the man. Newscasters probably didn't think anyone would care....

that's why i think there's the possiblity that he is innocent. i have the feeling he didn't do anything to that boy back then. i honestly know hardly anything about the case(or the one now for that matter) but if the kid and his family were willing to jsut get some money instead of trying to put the man who hurt the child into jail, where such a man would belong, and then not wanting to help investigation...it just for me points to Jackson being innocent, the boy/family being golddiggers. which is sad really
now maybe you'll say that the boy didn't want all the publicity that would come with a court case but i just think he'd choose justice over people knowing him for a few months til another case comes up. besides, he'd probably already gotten exposure(again, i know nothing about these cases, this is just what i think based on the little bits i DO know)

i think this really needs to go to court. every talks about what a bad person Micheal Jackson may or may not be and this would finally settle it...hopefully.

the picture i saw of him in my newspaper this morning...even if he's proven guilty, i meet him and he's the nicest person in the world, i'd probably still be irked by him(not to be incredibly superficial or anything ) ->

I agree that there is a possibility that he is innocent.... And that there is a possibility that he is guilty.... lol

*Does not know of any of the evidence, and has no clue if he is guilty or not* lol

Well, as you have said already, most times molestations happen with people the victim is directly related to. Fathers, step parents, siblings, neighbors, cousins and so on.

Not famous strangers.

So, it , may seem highly unlikely he's guilty to a lot of people/fans.

i read that his personal movie theatre in neverland had been raided...a lot of videos, photos and reels of film were confiscated...and there was something about his film-making friend...i foget his name...he was raided too and questioned about films he made with jackson...

still though i have to say im unsure of his guilt...i dont want to say i think hes innocent because frankly he is a damn wierd guy and none of us can really comprehend the way he thinks but i must say he seems sort of childish himself...i dont know if i can believe hed do that to another child...when hes so like one himself...went through so much crap as a kid...why would he want to ruin the lives of other kids?

He is very much like a kid himself.... He still talks like a kid, and acts like one. He doesn't only play with toys when he is with other children.... He will go out and play with toys by himself. While he was being questioned in court before, he kept making silly faces and giggling.... Not exactly appropriate behavior--especially not for an adult.

I think many will agree that, from what we know through the media, that Michael Jackson's childhood had a severe effect on him. The guy didn't have one, and its like he's either reverting back or what not. Thing is, it has left a mark on his mind, and I'm not saying that he's raving mad, just that there probably is some problem, which would result in his behaviour.

And as for the trial, I don't know anything about it.

Why did he turn white?

Aysha xxx

He claims either a skin condition or a genetic disorder or some such, I don't quite recall. Something along those lines. Others claim cosmetic surgery.

He says it was a genetic condition. Sane people put it down to extensive plastic surgery and chemical dyes.

He says it's vitaligo (where your skin loses pigment). Thing is, most people get patches of it. I've seen other black people with it, and they have lots of white/pink patches on themselves.

It doesn't add up.

He says that it is Vitiligo, a skin condition that causes discoloration. But, probably because of other features changing (such as his nose...), most people think he had something done on purpose to make his skin white.

Edit: Sorry for the information being repeated.... Debaser beat me to it.... lol

There is no way its a skin condition if it was Vitiligo then he would have blochy skin!!!!!! besides how stupid does he sound"oh i only had one plastic surgery" bull sh*t!!!!! he looks like an anerexi woman who fell out of the ugly tree hit every branch on the way down then fell in the god damn ugly stream and was found by the uglyites who taught him in there ugly ways

HAH!

How does that make them B******s?.....surely it implies that they are not making false accusations simply to rob Michael Jackson.

see, what spastic's saying is that the families are only saying that to get people to convict jackson (and then sue him afterwards). see, it makes lots of people think that, because they're SAYING that they're not asking for money, automatically means that they CAN'T and WON'T sue jackson. the statute of limitations won't stop them from suing him until long after jackson's trial. it's just a way to add some force to the prosecution's argument. see, they get him convicted, THEN take his money.

I meant it as a rhetorical question...

My viewpoints differ drastically from almost everyone in this forum on a lot of issues (some of you may remember me from a long while back). Hi I got v. bored today and decided to see what was goin' on in this forum.

ANYWAY I find it amusing that most of you guys feel the same way about michael jackson that i do:

He is scary and needs help. I also think he is very sad bc he could have had a much better life. He used to have talent and stuff.

Do I think he is guilty? Well I wouldn't put sex crimes against children past him. I mean, look at the guy and the way he acts. Seems like anything could be possible with him.

It is interesting to note that this man has made almost half a billion dollars in the last 10 years and has wasted almost all of it. I was reading an article about the way he spends his money and was shocked at the waste and extravagance.

I don't think his skin is natural either. I am a very pale white person and michael jackson is whiter than I am. There is something almost eerie about his skin color. Also, as others have mentioned that skin disease causes patches. Perhaps he did have the disease but decided to just go ahead and dye all of his skin white?

my little blankety blank was for the-not-so-nice-and-quite-naughty-alternative-word-for-male-testicles...............that make things clearer?



if you've got it,spend it,its his money.and has anyone noticed,his sister LaToyah Jackson is almost white......so maybe it is vitiligo.

p.s-i love u,gerbilfromhell,ever since the day u adopted me as your wee Noob,and now,u stick up for me about Michael! <------*new lifetime hero*

Yes, he is free to do what he wants with his money. But he has shown absolutely no good sense in his spending habits. He is teetering on bankrupcy as it is.

Just bc u have lots of money doesnt mean u should waste it on lots of luxurious junk until u have none left.

zesty, i agree that jackson's spending habits are, at least by society's norms, viewed as 'stupid'. but that really doesn't matter when you're thinking of whether he's guilty or not. really, it's sort of pointless to try and guess whether he's guilty or not, because no one really knows. heck, even this trial probably (unless there's some really concrete evidence one way or another) won't tell us whether he's guilty or not, except in the minds of a few jurors. but back on the topic of his spending habits: like i said, his habits are only 'weird' and 'stupid' by our society's norms. like crissi said, it seems like he still has the mind of a child. to him, his spendings probably make sense (and hey, he hasn't gone bankrupt, so who's to say they don't?).

i really feel sorry for the guy. he has to take so much sh*t from everyone, from the constant michael jackson jokes flying around to the media to this (assuming, of course, that he's innocent. if he's guilty, then he definitelly deserves any sh*t he gets about this case). no wonder he isolates himself from society.

lol I think that Mr. Jackon's habits would be viewed as odd by almost every single culture on the planet. I do not believe he has the mind of a child. He is over 40 years old and is most definitely not a child.

Should he be pitied? Yes and no. He should be pitied because of the effect his early fame had upon his life. However, much of what has happened to him has been his own work. Particularly his horrendous nose job.

OF course, just because he looks and acts odd does not mean he is guilty. However, I would not be surprised if he was guilty. In fact if i were a betting woman I would bet that he did do something to that kid. There was enough evidence for a judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. I dont think the general public knows what that evidence is yet; but it must exist.

lol I think michael jackson is the only subject that I can debate about with you guys without causing a major argument. I enjoy writing and will write about almost anything i guess

"I do not believe he has the mind of a child. He is over 40 years old and is most definitely not a child."

what i'm saying is that, despite him being over 40, his MIND is still like a child's. crissi posted about this too. you can read her's if you want.

also, the story of the child and his questioning by police (and his reactions to the questions), at least legally, can be considered enough evidence for a warrant. i'm not saying that that's all the evidence they have, but that, at least in some courts, is all the evidence they need to arrest him.

i'm not saying he's innocent. i'm just saying that he shouldn't be assumed guilty (and i'm not saying that anyone here IS assuming automatically that he's guilty. i'm just making a general statement because many people do automatically think he's guilty)

I think its an act. He can afford to act like a child because he is extremely wealthy and can afford to.

This is an article I just found about Michael Jackson's behavior... and how some psychiatrists relate it to the case: Stuck in Childhood?. I thought it was interesting.

A lot of people are making judgments about his guilt or innocence already. It seems kind of weird to me how many people are actually doing that--especially considering we don't even know what the evidence is yet.

That is an interesting article. I wonder what it would be like to have a conversation with michael jackson.

Perhaps he is so unhappy with the way his youth was spent that he is forever trying to re-live it and change things.

Or he is just a big nut who likes to play with toys and stuff.

Whatever.

unless there's some proof like a videotape jackson made or something, this case is just an example of how reasonable doubt gets people aquitted. this case, if it is indeed based mostly on the kid's story, radiates reasonable doubt. i know, i don't know the evidence, and i definitelly don't know if he's guilty or innocent, but from a legal standpoint, it's going to be VERY hard to prove he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt. of course, reasonable doubt isn't a factor in an arrest warrant, just in the trial itself. it makes me wonder what kind of evidence the prosecution has (or thinks it has) that it arrested jackson. or perhaps they thought he would destroy evidence. it's going to be a very interesting case, one way or the other.

but, on the other hand, if they DID have some sort of massivelly incriminating evidence, they are obligated by law to tell the defense attourneys (otherwise it's inadmissable). and if they really had it, i'm sure jackson'd've made a deal or plead guilty. on the other hand, if they didn't have anything really incriminating, the defense lawyers would've told the media by now......


grah, i'm going to stop second-guessing everyone involved with this case now and just wait and see what happens.

evidence

I agree.

Interesting stuff.

Well, like everyone else, I feel if he's guilty he deserves what he gets but if he's innocent then I sincerely hope that he does not suffer further from this.

Of course, the chances of the public finding out everything about the case are limited, and even if the case against him were to fail I suspect that most of the world would believe that he had bribed the jury etc.

That's the trouble with money, you get enough of it and your life can get a whole lot more complicated as people try to part you from it and resent you for it.

As far as the skin colour goes, the story told by one of his make-up artists is that he does indeed suffer from the pigmentation condition. It had been progressing in patches over his body and eventually it got to the point where it was easier to cover the brown skin than the white. The poor chap also had horrible burns on his scalp and head from an accident while filming an advert for Pepsi years ago.

Innocent or guilty, I really hope that people can still enjoy his songs. Billie Jean still has one of the best basslines in pop history!

well, THAT is some convincing evidence. no doubt he'll go with the insanity defense now. whether he is insane or not is up to a psychiatrist to decide. weird? of course. insane? probably. will he be found not guilty by reason of mental defect? (unless he accepts a plea bargain) i'd put money on it.

Hmmm I think he is insane. I really do. When i saw him dangle that baby from that balcony it cemented the idea that he is not a well person in my mind.

I would agree that I think Michael Jackson probably has some serious mental issue's. He really doesnt seem to understand boundaries at all. I hope someone atleast takes notice and has him sit down with a shrink for once, regardless of the outcome.

If he's guilty he's guilty if not he's not. I dont see what all the fuss is about. Yeah its bad if this happened to the kid, but whens the last time you saw a large scale media thing about something of this sort, sept ofcourse the last time he was accused. I thought primetime was supposed to be saved for killers and political scandals. I just find it very annoying how for like 3 days straight you couldnt turn on the news without it being some person with a camera standing outside his ranch place, blabbing about the same pointless stuff they did the day before.

ok...i dont have much to add to the previous statements made but...isnt the kid - gavin arvizo - the boy they featured quite heavily in the martin bashir documentary?

it looks like him but i remember the kid in the documentary looking really happy to be around jackson, nothing untoward at all...i dont mean to sound as though im saying i dont beleive the kid cause i know abuse victims will go to exraordinary lengths to protect their abusers but are the defense likely to use the documentary as evidence that arvizo wasnt afraid of jackson or anything like that?

That's one hell of a hard act to keep up all the time... even Marilyn Monroe dropped the dumb blonde act during interviews - she was a very intelligent woman behind the act, and she played it to suck in the movie audience with aplomb. Michael never seems to lose that thin, wispy, introverted voice at any time. He doesn't use it to win people over, his music does that for him.

Danny Baker (UK radio and TV presenter, unwittingly responsible for Bob Marley's death (honest!)) once said that Michael Jackson never really grew up; he went from baby to famous, and never had the chance to be a child. As such, he's never gotten out of behaving like one. His money has come to him by his father exploiting his talent, which he's taken on and developed himself. No doubt he's let his talent ossify, but then it's bloody hard to keep writing songs for four decades and still produce gems. Look at Cliff Richard - same scenario, now he's just a parody of himself, pumping out the obligatory christmas single.

So I'd say he's not really guilty. If he's still child-minded, it's entirely possible there's no actual sexual intent towards the kids at all. My guess is the parents going after his cash. It worked last time, his lawyers paid off the family out of court, which means either a: he's as guilty as sin, or b: he's innocent and his lawyers suggested he pay to avoid a lengthy and career-destroying court case.

does anyone else think its odd that michael jackson is actually black but the baby is white??????? i was just think about this while i was pooring a glass of milk (when my ideas normally happen)