Well, the Jackson trial judge has given the jury the information for deliberating the case:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/01/...ain698867.shtml

Personally, I do believe he'll "beat it" given the masterful performance of his attorney, who effectively deconstructed the accuser, the mother, and a few other key witnesses. What looked like a slam-dunk case earlier has now become a legal FUBAR beyond all reasonable comprehension IMHO.

Questions for debate:

1.)What will the verdict be?

2.)Which side has presented it's case better?

4.)Was Jackson guilty in your opinon?

What will the verdict be?

I think he may beat it overall, but I suspect there might be a "split decision". I think he'll be found not guilty of the conspiracy to commit child abduction and false imprisonment charges and probably not guilty of the extortion and molestation charges. I think the jury will opt for the lesser charge of supplying alcohol to a minor, a misdemeanor, rather than the felony charge of supplying alcohol to a minor with intent to sexually abuse him - mostly because the judge is giving them that option and juries often tend to take such instructions as, well, instructions. If they do find him guilty of the felonious supplying of alcohol, there's a chance they'll go with guilty on molestation, as well - but I think it's unlikely.

Which side has presented it's case better?

I don't think it's a matter of which side presented the better case as much as which side did a better job at damaging the other's case - and that would be the defense. In addition, I think the prosecution presented its case worse - though they were pretty close in terms of not presenting cases very well. I wouldn't have wanted any of these guys on my side.

Was Jackson guilty in your opinon?

Well, let's just say I don't think the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.


Note: I tend to be dead wrong in my trial outcome predictions.

1.)What will the verdict be? I believe that it would be innocent, although my personal view is different then my belief. He has gotten out of other arguments such as this. Lets just say, fame goes a long way when you got million dollar attorneys working for you.

2.)Which side has presented it's case better? I believe that the Jackson side presented it's case more efficently with bringing in the witnesses like McCalley Culkin. Remember this is a small town jury, they arn't use to all the fame and glamor.

4.)Was Jackson guilty in your opinon? Hmm what happened to question number3. Yea beyond a resonable doubt, i believe he is guilty.

1.)What will the verdict be?

I agree with Wertz. I think the jury will settle for a lesser charge, maybe the misdemeanor.

2.)Which side has presented it's case better?

I get the sense from hearing the media reports-- that the defense did the better job of discrediting the prosecutor's case. They did a good job of making the mother out to be a money grubber, trying to financially benefit from the situation at Jackson's expense.

4.)Was Jackson guilty in your opinon?

I have gone back and forth on this. I think Jackson might just be a very bizarre person, who himself is like a child. He doesn't seem to "get" that he puts himself in situations that look really bad. I feel sorry for him. And I don't want to see him go to prison, because I truly believe he will be killed there. And that is a very real concern.

A "slam-dunk case?" Oh, don't we know what happened the last time somebody said they had a "slam dunk" case?

D.A. Thomas Sneddon has had it out for Wacko Jacko since he slipped away the last time when he bought the kid's silence for $20 million. I think he did a lousy job of presenting his case.

1. The verdict will be not guilty.

2. The prosecution was really sunk by the overt greed of the "victim's" mother and wasn't Debbie Rowe supposed to be a prosecution witness? That's not how it played out. All the defense had to do was not do anything to help the prosecutor and I don't think it did.

3. Errr...what happened to three?

4. Guilty of what? Being weird? Well, DUH! That much we knew already. In America you can be rich and eccentric and get away with making goo-goo eyes at little boys. In California a celebrity can get away with murder so what's a little inappropriate groping between friends.

I'm forced to agree with Wertz and hayleyanne. Rich men do not go to jail for long periods of time. Juries are usually compassionate, and when given the evidence of Jackson's child-like habits I belive they will reduce his sentence significantly.




The defense shot holes through most of the prosecution's theories and discredited their star witness. The mother was left mumbling for words after she became the defense's witness. The had a crack-team of lawyers and legal advisors and they wowed the crowd by maintaining their cool and discrediting most of the prosecution's case against Jackson.




Given what I believe are extreme child-like episodes of behavior and actions I do not think he himself knows. He's accused of giving children wine to make them more easy to control but I do not think he himself was in control. Something happened (is happening) we do not know about. If he molest children he is not mentally fit to answer for it, just an opinion.

1.)What will the verdict be?

With the exception of the wine charge- not guilty

2.)Which side has presented it's case better?

I think it is obvious that the prosecution was just spoiling for a fight, and picked the wrong one, and lost.

4.)Was Jackson guilty in your opinon?

I, unfortunately for myself, have WAY too much exposure to pedophile cases from my job at a psych eval unit. If MJ were a pedophile that the prosecution would have us to believe, there would be ALOT more victims coming forth right now. Pedophiles can not control thier predatory urges, and always, at the age that MJ has, have LOTS of victims. For folks like Micauly Culkin and the kid that played webster and what not that are now adults, and have nothing to lose by telling the truth, say that they saw no wrongdoing there, well, I tend to believe them.

Michael is wierd as they come, and very rich, so it makes him a very enticing target for the Mom that brought these charges.

Listen, a great many of us are parents on this site- and there would be AT LEAST one or two of us that would not take any amount of money to be quiet, just to see our childs abuser on jail. He had access to WAY to many kids for there not to be other accusers.

I say he is guilty of horrendous judgement (so are the parents- I wouldn't let my kids stay there alone, or anywhere with a non-family adult member) and near terminal wierdness, but not pedophilia.

1.)What will the verdict be?

I voted "guilty", but I'm by no means sure. I think people are tired of people like Michael Jackson believing themselves above the law...or maybe that's just me. If it comes down to who put on a better show (which is all that seems to count anymore), the MJ will walk. High-priced, high-profile defense attorneys in these celebrity cases are always going to walk all over the $60K-a-year DA.

2.)Which side has presented it's case better?

I didn't pay that close attention. For more spectacular stunts, the defense.

4.)Was Jackson guilty in your opinon?
I think he's guilty of molestation (fondling, touching, etc.) but the victims are too embarrassed, or were too young to realize that what he was doing was wrong. I think his access to little boys should be curtailed and I shudder when I think of the poor kids he is raising as their "father".

Because, let's face it - he gets away with this now, and what will he do next?

1. The verdict will be "not guilty" on the felonies. They slap his wrist with the "providing alcohol to minors" charge which will result in a fine with ZERO jail time.

2. The defense. The prosecution was a debacle.

3. Jackson is a weird dude but I actually think that he's just a case of massively funded immaturity instead of a "pedophile" given the details of the case. The man is stuck in his adolescence in my view. He's like a 14 year old boy in his "club house" with his buddies, his girly mags, and his clandestine bottles of wine. Mentally, he's on par with those kids he befriended. The only difference is the size of his bank account.

But, even if Jackson was guilty, it seems like CA would be the best venue for him to beat the rap. We had the obviously guilty OJ Simpson and Robert Blake, who committed brutal murders, walk due to the incompetence of the prosecution teams that went after those killers.

In Jackson's case, the trial should have never taken place at all. It was a farce from day one.

Well, it's sunday night and jury meets to make a decision tomorrow. It's obvious that the consensus here is:

*Not guilty on the felony charges
*Guilty to the midemeanor charge
*Weird, but not necessarily a molester

In other news, the gloved-wonder has been hospitalized again. Evidently, his back kinked-up on him. Here's the article. To me, I think it's a last-ditch sympathy ploy. If it's real, I hope it's real severe and pinches those nerves like they've never been pinched before.

I think although Jackson is guilty as hell of 'inapropriate behavior' (although he himself may STILL not understand that), the prosecution picked the worst possible family in order to base their case. They are a hornets nest of grifters and that is more than obvious to even the most biased.

I vote here on a not guilty verdict, but I didnt vote him not guilty in the poll. He is certifiable and should be ordered to seek professional help no matter what the actual verdict.

I agree with you, however that will not be the case. He shall leave the country because he wants to start a Neverland Ranch in Africa. If memory serves he also is running out of fiscal means to do this, so he would be forced to sell his current home and leave America. He knows if he is let go with not a single black mark on his record he won't be welcomed with open arms again by anyone with a 40+ I.Q. That's why he'll flee to Africa where he can get away from rumors of his criminal behavior and start over "helping" children.

Any juror on the case at some point in their life, no matter how secluded or Amish the court may have thought during the selection process, have heard of him or his music. Celebrities have their own justice, anyone else would be buried under the jail for even being rumored as having had touched a child. Yet Jackson will be deemed as having been incompetent to answer for his crimes and have enough sympathy votes on the jury as to his chronic "illness" and the question of who will attend to his children if he were convicted to "beat it" and be named innocent on all charges.


Disclaimer: Murphy's Law dictates my being wrong in nearly all legal matters, safe bet if I think one thing it will be the opposite.

In all honesty, he probably is guilty of breaking the accused laws. The problem is that the family has enough "issues" that a skillful attorney will help him get out of it. If the family was more cohesive and had a mother that was somewhat stable and not lawsuit happy, they might have very well prevailed. I just can't see how he isn't accused of molestation. I honestly doubt that having other people's children sleeping in your bed is a platonic thing. I mean, am I missing something ehre people?.

According to a blurb by an LA DJ, looks like the freak walks - not guilty on all counts.

Just goes to show you - the rich ARE different.