Jackos Trial

Do you think Michael Jackson is Guilty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Couldn't really say

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
Gavin Arvizo may make a return visit to the Michael Jackson trial, via videotape.

The prosecution team begin their rebuttal, and wish to bring Gavin back via videotape; showing his first interview with police in July 2003.

Prosecutors say the tape would show that his story has been consistent from the beginning.

The defence says that if jurors can see the tape, then they should have the right to question Gavin about it.

They are demanding that Gavin returns to the stand for more cross-examination.
So does the verdict still stand on wacko Jacko? What are your views?
I think he is a deeply bizarre man who likes to act out a fantasy that he is still ten years old. I doubt though that this psychosis makes him want to engage in any sexual activity with the boys. I doubt that he would have such prominant endorcements if he were a peadophile.
Apparently its going ahead that they will play that DVD who the boy giving evidence. They are cutting it down to 30mins as the rest has no relevence. The defence want to put him and his mother up on stand as last. Which would be bad, the jury would see these 2 people last. You want to put some one up who is defending jacko, last.

Either way Jacko is a sick pup!
One thing is for sure and that is no one in that courtroom in the prosecution or defence is innocent!! How guilty they are and what they are guilty of is another mater!!

This is what that 13yr old boy told police in an interview:

"He put his hand in my pants," the boy said in a near whisper. "He started masturbating me. I told him I didn't want to do that. He kept saying he wants to teach me ... he said that it's OK, that there's nothing wrong with it, that it's natural.
Thats just sick!
I'd be seriously hacked off if all my defense team could come up with was a string of 'witnesses' to say how nice a man I am. If thats the best defence umpteen million dollars can buy I petty the poor buggars who can't afford such 'top class' representation.

Guilty as charged m'lud but still reckon he'll walk.

Yes he has a problem but can the prosecution prove beyond doubt the charges?

I served on a jury that heard charges of indecent assault.
The victim was a 14 year old girl.

The descriptions were graphic, medically accurate and therefore believable but there was irrefutable evidence the man was not present at the time or date.

It takes more than a good account to gain a conviction and what I have heard of the case makes me think "Guilty" but if I had heard all the evidence it could well be "Not Guilty".

Think I'll have a tenner each way on the outcome!
I saw an interview on CNN Larry King where he asked one of the US doctors who has a 'Show' on medical problems, just what he thought of jacko from a Dr.'s point of view.
The Doc sort of spread his hands and said words to the effect that his behaviour with children was not natural for an adult.
A recent CNN report after it was annouced that both sides had finished giving evidence said that if guilty jacko was guilty on all counts was looking at 20 years.
They said they though he would get off most charges but on one he looked definately guilty.
Interesting that all the character witnesses weren't called. I believe the judge ruled a couple as irrelevant, but I can't help wondering that others were having their doubts so Jacko's legal team avoided the embarrassment.
If it is going to take the jury more than an hour of deliberation their attention span will be breached and they will return a 'Not Guilty' just to get home for dinner. It would not be the first time.

Personally I think he is a sick fukc who should be shot.
Gas him guilty as f*ck.


My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that he is probably guilty of some of the charges though whether the evidence has been good enough to get a conviction is another matter. But you have got to wonder about the motivation of the mother who let her son get into these situations with Jacko. I mean, it isn't as if nobody knew that Jackson was a weirdo and there were allegations already out in the open about his alleged paedophilia. Did she perhaps set her son up so that Jackson would (or at least could) molest him in the hope of getting a big pay off like the previous case?
Did she perhaps set her son up so that Jackson would (or at least could) molest him in the hope of getting a big pay off like the previous case?
Worrying thought isn't it?
Did she perhaps set her son up so that Jackson would (or at least could) molest him in the hope of getting a big pay off like the previous case?
OK gas her as well, might as well make a day of it.
Little doubt that Jackson's behaviour falls into the 'deeply innappropriate' category and if he was anyone other than a multi-millionaire pop star he'd have been inside for some time now (hopefully being turned over by 'decent' criminals as a deterrent to re-offending)

Did anyone see the fusker on TV wearing Army blazer badges on his jacket? - definitely saw him wearing an AAC badge on one news report.
Guilty or not guilty, the guy is not right. He had his childhood stripped away from him by his money grabbing parents and therefore has never grown up.

Similar threads

Latest Threads