Micheal Jackson:What the hells going on?

[VirusType2]

Micheal Jackson:What the hells going on?

This is unbelievable!

Why is this man hanging out with preteens?

Being notorious for being under investigation for pedophilia, who in the hell would let thier children hang out with him?

Are they baiting Mr.Jackson for black mail?

Whoring thier children as gay underage prostitutes and selling thier souls for a quick million bucks?

Who in the hell would let thier children hang out with any grown man?

Please post opinions/details/latest news

Whats the latest on his trial?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Micheal Jackson:What the hells going on?

Nothing really.

This is unbelievable!

From 1987 to 1995, child molestation charges rose from a lowly 15% of nation wide abuse cases, to 44% cresting its latest year.

The boom of charges was believed to be an increase of adulterous behavior from child guardians or peers, or due to the latter, which involved simple misinterpretations of the charge and its conditions.

In 1992, they're was a study that proved 34% of all charges came out of either fear, misinterpretation, or a lacking fundemental knowledge of what molestation qualifies for. There was a group of men in New York who were holding a computers studies class in the living room of there own home who were charged with molestation.

The charge originated when one of the children told police, the men played naked leap frog with them.

The basis soon found itself in 1999 not to be of those conditions, but to be of a child having been told he was raped by these men, from his own parents and by police. It was documented, and since 2000 the men have been released at the cost of nearly 13 years of there lives.

Something that was strange about the "childrens" charges, was that of those who were allowed to take physicals to proof if they're was penetration, showed no signs of it or of sperm.

That same year, a report came out commenting about the number of molestation charges from 1987 to 1995, detailing that most of these arose out of paranoia, suggestive belief or guilt of having been molested, or threats which were also handled.

Threats, range from children being told to say they were molested, for the dignity of either their parents (usually involving publicity or funds). Some children have been documented as saying they were just, blantantly told they were molested, without actually having been and believed it because thats what everyone else wanted of them.

One charge that came often in courts, was that the children molested, accused their molested of having played "naked leap frog with them". From taking a jump and a hump, you'd most certainly find abuse was evident, if not psycologically cited inside a childs mind.

Fact is about these cases, most were driven out of fear, paranoia, or misdefining; however out of a lowly 10% of those charges made, it was found that the parents often made such accusations out of personal anger against the one they were charging (not of molestation causing anger, but of stolen or lost goods, etc.), jealousy, or to get rich off of someone's else's personal life.

Why is this man hanging out with preteens?

Because the man had no teenager life, and his only available way of doing that is by connecting to other youths.

Sounds fishy, but its really not. Not all of those older people who prefer to hang-around the youner, are criminals to begin with, or eventually start up to being.

Being notorious for being under investigation for pedophilia, who in the hell would let thier children hang out with him?

Actually, the case finds itself now with the boy withdrawing his accusations of being shown pornography by Mr. Jackson, and also, of having it suggested to him for viewing.

It does'nt help the thought that when you consider the Parents making the charges, they're all doing it for one thing:

To get Mr. Jacksons money.

Its an efficient get rich quick scheme.

Are they baiting Mr.Jackson for black mail?

No, they just need their children to have spent one day with him to make their charges. See his second chargee.

Whoring thier children as gay underage prostitutes and selling thier souls for a quick million bucks?

Thing is, no proven physical sexual contact has been made thus far. Problem with penetration is, it needs to be violent; otherwise with most young teens, cuts or hemroids, are viewed as biologically natural with the moving of crap from the ass.

Who in the hell would let thier children hang out with any grown man?

Why don't fathers leave the family as soon as it has kids then? Who the hell has a father anyway? :/

Whats the latest on his trial?

Google is your friend. Trust me.

 

[Raziaar]

I wonder if Michael is going to place the Race card on these kids.

Jackson: "These boys are saying these things because i'm black. They hate the black man, and they hate me because i'm black."

He's used that card enough times, i wouldn't be surprised if he used it here again.

Besides. Could the guy GET anymore white skinned? He's whiter than me. Though... I am lightly tanned.

 

[VirusType2]

Mr.Jackson is sleeping with little boys.

(final edit)
@K e r b e r o s:

By your post, I understand your point of view is that you believe he is innocent.

I hope he is innocent if not only for the childs sake.

I appreciate your comments.

Why is this man hanging out with preteens?

Being notorious for being under investigation for pedophilia, who in the hell would let thier children hang out with him?

Because the man had no teenager life, and his only available way of doing that is by connecting to other youths.

Once you are past 40 years old, its too late to be a teenager and
I don't care if he didn't have a fun childhood, and neither do the courts.

He is not connecting with teenagers, Mr.Jackson is sleeping with little boys K e r b e r o s.

Millions of people didn't have a fun childhood. So what? He is not a child anymore, he is a grown man. Grown men don't have any bussiness with preteens that are not related or affiliated with family. Mr.Jackson is SLEEPING with children that aren't his!

If he had EDIT:any sense at all,(half a brain) he would have said look, I have just been:
(point of view 1)blackmailed more than once for millions of dollars when he was innocent.
or
(point of view 2)paid off some kids parents millions of dollars more than once to not tell police he has molested thier children.

Either way! he should be staying the hell away from children, at the very least in private. It's one thing to be in public; talking, teaching kids, but I repeat Mr.Jackson is SLEEPING with children that aren't his!

Thing is, no proven physical sexual contact has been made thus far. Problem with penetration is, it needs to be violent; otherwise with most young teens, cuts or hemroids, are viewed as biologically natural with the moving of crap from the ass.

Not really sure what you mean after the first sentance, but the boys sister claims to have seen physical contact. It is yet to be decided by the courts if it was sexual.

NOTE remember he is innocent untill proven guilty

I have heard that one boys sister claims to have seen micheal jackson phsyically touching her brother in a strange manner and kissing his forehead. THIS is incriminating, or blatant blackmail

A video clip of a reinactment of the trial that just said this:
the prosecutor said "he had his hand down the kids pants and his hand on the kids genitalia"
(they stoped there and cut the tape.)
Source -E news T.V.

when I said:

Who in the hell would let thier children hang out with any grown man?

this was your reply:

Why don't fathers leave the family as soon as it has kids then? Who the hell has a father anyway? :/

You know I ment hanging out with grown men not related or affiliated with their family.

Trying to find a way to make the sentance go in a different direction than intended is just a waste of everyone's time-especially mine. If you want to make your point then go ahead, but you know very well thats not what I ment, so why go that route?

Google is your friend. Trust me.

I notice that I usually hear about things on this forum alot sooner than on the news. This forum is up to the minute.

could just type it into google, but thought I would rather discuss it with friends and people that use the forum.
EDIT: Besides if everyone just used google to search for information, only that person would be informed. Also this forum would be practically useless.

 

[Sparta]

www.thesmokinggun.com

Always has Michael Jackson stuff

 

[VirusType2]

www.thesmokinggun.com

Always has Michael Jackson stuff

shortcut to info on the smoking gun - click here

 

[Dynasty]

i REALLY hope he goes down, there is so much evidence against him

 

[Calanen]

I'm not sure what Kerberos' point is. Is it that most child abuse allegations that come before the courts are made up? I know some that clearly seem to be, like the one with the pre-school in California, I can't remember its name, but that was a disgrace when you look at its circumstances. Those people were not child abusers at all. Just got caught up in the whole witchhunt.

So while it is very important that people not get caught up in the witchhunt - my own feeling is that it is next to impossible for a child to successfully bring such a claim against a person, especially if they are otherwise a pillar of the community. You have to get the police to listen to you first, get the prosecutor to lay charges, then the kid gets demolished by lawyers (like me, but I dont atm do crim work). Often also the abuser provides shelter to the child, and has threatened to kill the child if he or she reports the abuse? Very much a no win situation for the kid to come forward. So it is likely that statistics of abuse are under reported, not overly manufactured.

Did Michael Jackson molest these children? I have no idea. Thats what the trial is for.

 

[Calanen]

Also re the race card - kind of a silly one to play in this trial. There are no black people on the jury.....

 

[Raziaar]

Also re the race card - kind of a silly one to play in this trial. There are no black people on the jury.....

Still wouldn't surprise me if he played it. It's the only used card in his deck. Heh.

 

[Calanen]

Still wouldn't surprise me if he played it. It's the only used card in his deck. Heh.

Nope - the best card he has in his deck is the fact that the accusers mother seems a bit shady, so if I were his attorney (and he seems to be doing this) I'd be going after her and saying she put the kid up to it. Which may be the case who knows.

With a non-black jury, you risk alienating the jury by using the race card - if there was even one black person on the jury it might be worth a try, because u only need 1 person to stubbornly refuse to say Yes he is guilty to hang the jury and have another trial, which the State might decide is to expensive to bother with. Not in this case though.

If you say, hey he is black - you may really annoy the jury so they convict him.

Just my thoughts....

Btw I thought, and think that Mark Geragos is an idiot. Probably so did Michael Jackson which is why he got rid of him. He is talked up like he is an excellent lawyer, and I know he has good people working for him (who probably are the ones who draft the kickass legal motions for him) but he as the talking head completely underwhelmes me. Johnny Cochrane on the other hand is kickass.

Another lawyer who I thought was a clown was whoever was representing the army guy who was charged with abusing prisoners at Abu Graib - saying 'cheerleaders do pyramids every day, is that torture?' just makes court martial judges hate you and your clients. Far better to do a mea culpa, say you made a very serious mistake, accept it as wrong, and will take your punishment.

Geragos when defending Winona Ryder completely failed to impress me. With all his grandstanding about how we are gonna show she's innocent etc...man she plead not guilty, and got slammed by the court - 1000 hours of community service or something like that plus fines? She may have been able to cop a plea bargain OR plead guilty, accepted it as wrong, say she lost her mind as she clearly has the money through a momentary lapse of reason and will never do anything like it again.... Judge would have been likely to be far less harsh on her and no trial to keep everyone enthralled. Hell it was not even open to debate,. there was a video of her nicking stuff!

The only thing I can think of, that perhaps may have happened, is that Geragos told Ryder all this, and she still said Mark, you go for it buddy! I doubt it though......

 

[K e r b e r o s]

NOTE remember he is innocent untill proven guilty

He is not connecting with teenagers, Mr.Jackson is sleeping with little boys K e r b e r o s.

Whoa, slow down they're virus! Contradictions are bad. Especially when your biased into believing he is guilty :/

Mr.Jackson is SLEEPING with children that aren't his!

Sleeping with ... or having sexual contact with? Further, if this was truely tramatic why is it just now showing up and getting dealt with? Why was'nt it before and is they're any physical evidence a sexual contact has occured?

Not in the last couple of cases was this proven -- the people doing it where Hollywood scammers. Ben Affleck was the most recent.

Either way! he should be staying the hell away from children, at the very least in private. It's one thing to be in public; talking, teaching kids, but I repeat Mr.Jackson is SLEEPING with children that aren't his!

But has they're been sexual contact? Further, this has happened before allegedly -- lets believe he was guilty for those older charges (which he was'nt), where's the Parents common sense now?

I have heard that one boys sister claims to have seen micheal jackson phsyically touching her brother in a strange manner and kissing his forehead. THIS is incriminating, or blatant blackmail

Where are you alleging this touching occured? Or are your definitions only skin deep?

A video clip of a reinactment of the trial that just said this:
the prosecutor said "he had his hand down the kids pants and his hand on the kids genitalia"
(they stoped there and cut the tape.)
Source -E news T.V.

Of course, because they want you assume Michael to be guilty. Everyone has they're agenda -- and yours was pre-defined when you stag ran your own opinions into contradiction.

What are Michaels beliefs?

Oh and you forgot, the boy took back several of his testimonies. People have scouted out Jackson before with attempts to rip money right from under him; using this exact charge.

See his past cases.

You know I ment hanging out with grown men not related or affiliated with their family.

Unfortunately, your original position was that men hanging out with children is a dangerous subject:

Who in the hell would let thier children hang out with any grown man?

I hit print screen incase you had a change of heart.

REALLY hope he goes down, there is so much evidence against him

Whats your evidence?

 

[Raziaar]

Nope - the best card he has in his deck is the fact that the accusers mother seems a bit shady, so if I were his attorney (and he seems to be doing this) I'd be going after her and saying she put the kid up to it. Which may be the case who knows.

I think you misunderstand what i'm saying. I'm saying that he would probably play the black card even though it has no factor at all in the case. I'm SAYING, that he has PLAYED the card so many other times with so many other situations in his career, that it wouldn't surprise me if he did something dumb like play it here even though there's no point for it. I'm saying that's one of his most used defenses for other cases.

What i'm *NOT* saying is anything serious about him using it on this case. I'm not saying that it's wise, or even likely he will use it. Cause it'd be stupid to. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me if he did, because it's so predictable of him.

My comments had nothing to do with the merits of the case man.

 

[Calanen]

As far as making the distinction between sleeping in the same bed with, and have sexual relations with, you are going to have a hard time selling that story to the jury.

The average working man and woman in the street are going to be deeply suspicious of any 40+ man that wants children in his bed with him. Especially children not related to him, although having any children in your bed at any time, is not a good idea if you are a man, innocent or not. All you need is for your son or daughter to say at school, I slept in daddy's bed last night....and you may be in for a lot of trouble.

 

[Raziaar]

Well. Kerberos. Even if there was no sexual contact or anything of that nature involved. The guy should 'not', under any circumstances be sleeping in the same bed as young kids. I don't give a damn if he's trying to 'recapture' his childhood. That's not recapturing his childhood. I never slept in the same bed with even my brother except when I was real young. But we're BROTHERS, and super young, and completely innocent. Whereas with Jackson, you have a 40+ year old man, 30+ years older than these kids, sleeping in the same bed.

That alone, even without sexual contact, is perverse. Perverse if a woman were to do it, perverse if a man were to do it. The only exception is if that man or woman is the child's parents. And even then, it wouldn't be a common occurance in that situation. It'd be if the child got scared or something and needed the comfort of his/her parents to sleep through the night.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well. Kerberos. Even if there was no sexual contact or anything of that nature involved. The guy should 'not', under any circumstances be sleeping in the same bed as young kids.

Thats the mothers problem -- if she monitored and talked to her children, this situation could've been caught sooner and perhaps stopped.

I don't blaim the child, but I do blame the parent -- and if Michael's guilty then you know who the blames going to next.

I don't give a damn if he's trying to 'recapture' his childhood.

Shock Factor 0. Same thing I said when it was told to me. :/

I never slept in the same bed with even my brother except when I was real young. But we're BROTHERS, and super young, and completely innocent.

So ... this proves what? Michael needs to be family? Yes, I understand that. However, these Parents made the choice -- and these parents kept sending their kids even when these things were going on, and after they stopped "happening".

Dont the parents get it? Pedophile Sacrifices=bad.

It'd be if the child got scared or something and needed the comfort of his/her parents to sleep through the night.

Perhaps -- but whose raising this womans child? Michael, or the Woman? Again, where are the parents in this childs life moderation? Whys it got to be a celebrity?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

As far as making the distinction between sleeping in the same bed with, and have sexual relations with, you are going to have a hard time selling that story to the jury.

It's sold -- and its true. Where talking about molestation -- but going unconscious next to another unconscious human being is not rape; its my uncle and his wife after drinking Absinthe.

 

[Raziaar]

So ... this proves what? Michael needs to be family? Yes, I understand that. However, these Parents made the choice -- and these parents kept sending their kids even when these things were going on, and after they stopped "happening".

Dont the parents get it? Pedophile Sacrifices=bad.

How do you even know that initially the parents had any knowledge of these situations? The kids might have been too ashamed to speak of them.

 

[Calanen]

It's sold -- and its true. Where talking about molestation -- but going unconscious next to another unconscious human being is not rape; its my uncle and his wife after drinking Absinthe.

I understand the distinction, but say that in the minds of the jury there is likely to be no difference. You say the story is sold - but have the jury bought it? Maybe. I think the case will come down to witness credibility, and if Jackson gets off its because they think the mother and the kid were full of bs.

 

[VirusType2]

If people didn't belive that he might be guilty he wouldn't be on trial

Becuase Kerberos pointed out that certain things I typed were unclear, I wanted to make sure that I cleared them up.

For clarification; I wanted to make sure that no one else missinterperets what I'm saying. If anyone has been up on the news...at the very least they new I ment;

When I said:

"Mr.Jackson is Sleeping with children."

I ment:

Mr.Jackson on t.v. interviews, admittedly, sleeps with children. I assumed everyone knew that fact. I am NOT saying that he is having sex with children I don't know of this to be a fact.

In my opinion:
who knows what they are doing but they are in a bed, under the sheets for many hours.

And it's just not right. Any normal human can see that it's not right.. something(or somethings) is wrong with him. Remember when I said "if Mr.Jackson had any common sense at all he would be avoiding children." - like teh plague.

Especially when your biased into believing he is guilty :/

If people didn't belive that he might be guilty he wouldn't be on trial

I am not biased into beliveing he is guilty. He might be guilty. dont deliberately missunderstand me. I thought I made my stance on the subject of Mr.Jackson crystal clear.

A grown ass man 40+ years old has no business sleeping with children that are not related or he is not the guardian of.

Certainly you agree with me here? and this is basically my entire point.

No this does not make him guilty of anything, unless the child was unwilling.

No it is not child molestation to be laying in a bed with a child.

@ Kerberos

you think he is innocent. do you know enough to say that? or are you just biased, like you claim that I am?
I hope he is innocent. I don't know enough facts to call it either way.. Im not the judge and jury.

I have stated my opinion, I have stated my view, my stance, and have made it crystal clear what I ment just for kerberos, and I have nothing else important to add to the topic. I am interested in what everyone else wants to add.

Its just getting a little old Kerberos. lets proceed with new information shall we? Wait and let everyone else have a turn to place their opinions and add new info.

You seem to be an intelligent guy, don't make everyone think otherwise, by purposely miss-interpreting everything I write. It has gotten on my nerves more than a little. You are acting a troll since the first post.

 

[Calanen]

How do you even know that initially the parents had any knowledge of these situations? The kids might have been too ashamed to speak of them.

The parents clearly did know that Jackson had been accused of molestation some years earlier, and had reached an out of court settlement with his accuser. I think that a prudent parent would not let their children sleep in the same bed, or at least be alone with, or near a person with such a record - as a matter of caution - whether or not he can be proven to have committed those crimes. I t shows bad judgment on the part of the parents, or, a desire to set up Mr Jackson for Plaintiff suit No2.

 

[Raziaar]

The parents clearly did know that Jackson had been accused of molestation some years earlier, and had reached an out of court settlement with his accuser. I think that a prudent parent would not let their children sleep in the same bed, or at least be alone with, or near a person with such a record - as a matter of caution - whether or not he can be proven to have committed those crimes. I t shows bad judgment on the part of the parents, or, a desire to set up Mr Jackson for Plaintiff suit No2.

I agree. But that also applies to previous accusations, not to their children.

I don't know much about the case... but Jackson strikes me as a man, with his mannerisms among many other things, capable of such a thing. His physical appearance aside, he doesn't strike me as an innocent man when it comes to young children.

 

[VirusType2]

@Kerberos

On 2 occasions you have claimed I contradicted myself which I find terribly irritating becuase I have never contradicted myself.

Then you want to back it up with proof claiming "I hit the Print screen button"

... well?

back it up or shut it up

Whoa, slow down they're virus! Contradictions are bad. Especially when your biased into believing he is guilty :/

Of course, because they want you assume Michael to be guilty. Everyone has they're agenda -- and yours was pre-defined when you stag ran your own opinions into contradiction.

 

[Calanen]

I agree. But that also applies to previous accusations, not to their children.

I don't follow.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

:d

Mr.Jackson on t.v. interviews, admittedly, sleeps with children. I assumed everyone knew that fact. I am NOT saying that he is having sex with children I don't know of this to be a fact.

Glad you cleared that up for the forum. Your last bold-faces implied you both meant sleep and sex.

And it's just not right. Any normal human can see that it's not right.. something(or somethings) is wrong with him. Remember when I said "if Mr.Jackson had any common sense at all he would be avoiding children." - like teh plague.

I'm unclear yes, as to what Michael does or what his motives are. I've heard rumors saying kids like him naturally, so he tends to their ideal's and takes them out to places for inspiration. Heck, sometimes he just likes to strike up a conservation with them and yes, take them back to the Neverland ranch.

However, such friendly behavior out of a "grown-ass" man does'nt submit he is guilty of such issues; however I think we can all agree, if he is innocent, which he still is in this case; let him learn from this case.

I am not biased into beliveing he is guilty. He might be guilty. dont deliberately missunderstand me. I thought I made my stance on the subject of Mr.Jackson crystal clear.

Actually, you placated both stances. And its not my responsibility to forge rough opinions from each one, of course, truely varying in style, maturity, and blatant say.

As you've clarified above this all, and I can rest soundly knowing were back at step one, which is: Michael is innocent until proven guilty.

Now, was there some evidence you had to debate? You know, like the new kind?

A grown ass man 40+ years old has no business sleeping with children that are not related or he is not the guardian of.

Certainly you agree with me here? and this is basically my entire point.

I agree with you there -- but your points were rather deliberate in your first initiating post, so sorry if I had probed a little harshly:

Who in the hell would let thier children hang out with any grown man?

My observation from here, means that "any" grown man classifies as "any". Here is where I mean it blatant and deliberate.
--

you think he is innocent. do you know enough to say that? or are you just biased, like you claim that I am?

Cleary this is why we bumped heads -- were both biased. :naughty: Now, before you say you magically changed, above is your starting paragraph which reads differently of your change:

Micheal Jackson:What the hells going on?

This is unbelievable!

Why is this man hanging out with preteens?

Being notorious for being under investigation for pedophilia, who in the hell would let thier children hang out with him?

Are they baiting Mr.Jackson for black mail?

Whoring thier children as gay underage prostitutes and selling thier souls for a quick million bucks?

Such harshness can be studied to interept you knew he was guilty, or meant to convey for others he is guilty; or rather, the information nessecary to conclude that he's evil, is there and it was proven.

You cannot take out of context or lower the context of your initiating post -- it was extreme, blantant, and its a little coy for you now to suddenly change heart only now when someone confronts you.

I hope he is innocent. I don't know enough facts to call it either way.. Im not the judge and jury.

Sure, look what I cited off your first paragraph. Hope and Innocence is not at all conveyed:

Micheal Jackson:What the hells going on?

This is unbelievable!

Why is this man hanging out with preteens?

Being notorious for being under investigation for pedophilia, who in the hell would let thier children hang out with him?

Are they baiting Mr.Jackson for black mail?

Whoring thier children as gay underage prostitutes and selling thier souls for a quick million bucks?

Hope? Innocent? There's no room for those titles in your original posting.

You seem to be an intelligent guy, don't make everyone think otherwise, by purposely miss-interpreting everything I write. It has gotten on my nerves more than a little. You are acting a troll since the first post.

Placation: I've had this charged to me numerous times, but only from two people (accounting for you, your the second). If you think I have the responsibility of trolling, when you just ran right off topic with your interpretations of my behavior (because it obviously did'nt suite your style) then your sorely mistaken.

Either keep it to PM's, or in your words Mr.Virus;

back it up or shut it up

:E

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I think he's a weirdo but I'm having doubts with the case in that he actually molested the children.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The first and second times, I was worried -- the third and fourth, and all of them having one thing in common: Hollywood scammers, I also had a lot of trouble believing it.

The boys brother has just taken back some of his testimonies aswell.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Guilty.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Guilty until proven innocent.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Innocent until proven guilty -- we dont do that Wales system over here in America.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Innocent until proven guilty -- we dont do that Wales system over here in America.

wales shares the same laws as England .

ne way, i think hes guilty

anyway, hes got the best lawyers in the country on his side, theres no such thing as guilty. :frown:

 

[DreamThrall]

I think they should just lock him away so he can't molest any more children, and then he'll *finally* fade into obscurity like he was doomed to do anyways.

Seriously, think about it... when was the last time you heard something about Michael Jackson that DIDN'T have to do with molesting children? When was the last time you heard about his musical career? Yeah.

 

[Hazar]

I think they should just lock him away so he can't molest any more children, and then he'll *finally* fade into obscurity like he was doomed to do anyways.

Seriously, think about it... when was the last time you heard something about Michael Jackson that DIDN'T have to do with molesting children? When was the last time you heard about his musical career? Yeah.

michael jackson had a musical carreer? :O


jk

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Owe! <grabs crouch in pain>

 

[kmack]

I think that Michael is a pedophile, too much information out there from a variety of sources says so. BUT that having been said, this particular case will probably be in Jacksons favor (he has good lawyers) because the prosecutions key accusers all have serious credibility issues.

 

[The Monkey]

He'll not survive one week in prison.

 

[CptStern]

the public judged him guilty a long time ago ...it maybe that he is ..but if the lawyers are worth their weight in bad karma he'll get off ...but the world has already judged him so he's already ruined

 

[kmack]

He'll not survive one week in prison.

Yup, child molesters do not make it very long in prison. You'd be surprised to see what a bank robber or gang banger thinks of a grown man who hurts children. It guarentees a few sharpended spoons between the ribs in the lunchline.

 

[PickledGecko]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Neither. "The Accused" until either, he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or he is not. If he is innocent I feel sorry for him, he will never lose the stigma of being someone accused of such a crime. But I believe he will go free, as the case seems pretty weak. In cases about sexual crime, unless you find forensic evidence you're pretty much in the clear.

My opinion, not that anyone cares, is that he probably has molested children. Whether he molested these kids, I dont know, there is a reasonable doubt.