Poll: Michael Jackson

Underhound · November-19th-2003, 12:42 PM

Pretty straightforward question.
Have at it.

Tom Storer · November-19th-2003, 01:03 PM

Wouldn't voting "I'd like to see Michael Jackson convicted" be the equivalent of saying "I'd like Michael Jackson to have molested a child"? How could you want that?

Underhound · November-19th-2003, 01:10 PM

Sshhh, Tom. Don't give it away.

bluenoter · November-19th-2003, 01:22 PM

Why would I favor either verdict without knowing the evidence presented during the "fair and accurate trial"? Such a trial would not hinge on his having settled child molestation charges out of court in the past.

The poll needs a third choice: "I don't have any basis for forming an opinion."

mke · November-19th-2003, 01:29 PM

Why is this question being asked now? How long ago did that whole scandal take place?

Ron Thorne · November-19th-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluenoter

The poll needs a third choice: "I don't have any basis for forming an opinion."

Correctimundo, bluenoter.

mke, there's a new investigation underway, one which began this week at his ranch near Santa Barbara, California.

Pete C · November-19th-2003, 01:42 PM

How about we cite certain religious authority and convict him for self-mutilation?

Tanager · November-19th-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluenoter
The poll needs a third choice: "I don't have any basis for forming an opinion."

Isn't that the same as just not voting?

mke · November-19th-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tanager
Isn't that the same as just not voting?

No.

Tanager · November-19th-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mke
No.

Hrm, maybe you're right - I didn't vote, but my reason was more along the lines of, "I really don't give a shit."

mke · November-19th-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tanager
Hrm, maybe you're right - I didn't vote, but my reason was more along the lines of, "I really don't give a shit."

I'm more or less in that camp myself.

Squaredancecalling Steve · November-19th-2003, 01:58 PM

I think he's going for the Natalie Wood look.

mke · November-19th-2003, 02:09 PM

SDCS,

In the future, please post a warning before doing that.

bluenoter · November-19th-2003, 02:20 PM

I think the conventional wisdom used to be that he was going for the Diana Ross look.

cookie · November-19th-2003, 02:27 PM

Dan Rather just interrupted my regularly scheduled soap opera to announce that there is now a warrant out for Jackson's arrest.

When I heard the Special Report music, I was in the kitchen. I thought it was a matter of national security or something, but nooooooo..... it was this celebrity crime bullshit.

Appropriate since the first music I heard today was Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry." (that's Henley, right? I don't pay close attention to that stuff).

Underhound · November-19th-2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluenoter
Why would I favor either verdict without knowing the evidence presented during the "fair and accurate trial"? Such a trial would not hinge on his having settled child molestation charges out of court in the past.

The poll needs a third choice: "I don't have any basis for forming an opinion."

The poll question is not intended to put you in the jury box, rather it asks if would you like to see a conviction or an acquittal. The qualifier "fair and accurate trial" supposes that the outcome of such a trial would reflect the absolute truth. Your need have access to evidence is beside the point. We're talking hypothetical perfect world stuff here.

The reason I put forth the question is this:
A few years ago when Jacko was under investigation for alleged diddling, a co-worker of mine made a comment along the lines of "I hope he's guilty". My immediate response was much like Tom Storer's in post#2. Hoping to find someone guilty of child molestation is like hoping that children have been molested. Pretty sick.

As of now, 6 out of 10 respondents have said they'd like to see a conviction in such a trial. Granted, these are instinctive responses and I'm sure none of us really wish such horror onto any children. But I think it reflects a certain atmosphere of zeal where peoples' desire to prosecute the creepy guy is so strong that they overlook the reality of what that desire actually means.

Thank you for participating.

Dr. Underhound
Amateur Research Psychologist.

P.S. I think Jacko's looking more rodent-like than anything else. I was going to post a picture for comparison, but I couldn't find a squirrel that ugly.

Douglas · November-19th-2003, 04:23 PM

Mild dissent from the public gallery.

Just because the trial is fair and accurate does not mean that the verdict has to be.

Underhound · November-19th-2003, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas
Mild dissent from the public gallery.

Just because the trial is fair and accurate does not mean that the verdict has to be.

Is a verdict considered part of the trial as a whole? Maybe not.
My using the term "accurate" was intended to presume that the correct verdict prevailed.
Perhaps I could have worded it more perfectly in order to make my point.
Mild dissent considered and appreciated.

Tom Storer · November-19th-2003, 04:32 PM

I would hope that those who voted that they'd like to see him convicted voted that way because they are convinced in their omniscient heart of hearts that he *is* guilty, rather than hoping he's guilty just so they can watch him be convicted.

Gentle Giant · November-19th-2003, 04:37 PM

I'm sure there are a lot of inmates that would be glad to have Michael Jackson join their community.

Douglas · November-19th-2003, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Underhound
Is a verdict considered part of the trial as a whole? Maybe not.
My using the term "accurate" was intended to presume that the correct verdict prevailed.
Perhaps I could have worded it more perfectly in order to make my point.
Mild dissent considered and appreciated.

A trial in a legal sense does indeed encompass both examination and determination, according to my dictionary. Not knowing for sure before consulting it (previously being a person of good character and having no need to know), I could see some potential ambiguity. For example, you take an "exam" and later (sometimes much later) you get the results. Accurate could be read as in the sense of done properly or correctly.

I’ll admit that your intent is pretty clear on reflection. I’ll also admit that a brisk scan can give rise to mild dissent.

I hope that your honour can take into mitigation that this is the first time I stand before this court.

Squaredancecalling Steve · November-19th-2003, 06:40 PM

From the intermittently accurate FOXNews Channel:

Jacko Accuser: 'Wine and Sleeping Pills'

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

By Roger Friedman

Jacko Accuser: 'Wine and Sleeping Pills'

The 12-year-old boy at the center of the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal may have confessed to his psychiatrist that the pop singer plied him with wine and sleeping pills when he allegedly molested him, according to sources.

The boy has also hired Los Angeles attorney Larry Feldman, the same lawyer who represented the family of a 13-year-old boy who made similar allegations a decade ago, the sources said.

Also, according to my source, Jackson — knowing some months ago that the boy and his family had serious complaints about his relationship with them — tried to get rid of them.

“He bought them passports and planned to ship them off to somewhere in South America,” a friend of the boy’s family (a mother and siblings) told me. In fact, says this source, Jackson kept the family at Neverland for a period of time, hoping to convince them to drop their allegations by lavishing them with entertainment and further merriment.

Calls to Feldman and to the family’s other attorney were not returned.

According to sources, the boy who made the allegations was a cancer patient whose "last wish" was to meet Jackson at a time that his friends and family feared his illness was worsening.

Jackson paid the family’s medical bills and assisted them financially, even buying them a car and, according to sources, possibly a new house. When the boy’s condition improved, according to a family friend, Jackson brought him to his Neverland Valley Ranch. That is when the alleged inappropriate contact between them is thought to have occurred.

At some point last spring, the boy's schoolmates — apparently aware of his relationship with Jackson — began taunting him in public. In one case, an incident of harassment is said to have occurred at a gas station, prompting the boy’s mother to seek legal advice. The lawyer she met with advised sending the boy to a psychologist. According to my source, the psychologist had enough concerns to report his conversation to the police.

That would jibe with the idea proposed by the police and others that the family is not seeking civil damages at this time or anticipating a cash settlement similar to the one that happened 10 years ago.

Sadly, according to my source, the health condition of the boy involved is still in jeopardy — a situation that should add to the melodrama of an already shocking and headline-making story.

Uli · November-19th-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Squaredancecalling Steve

According to sources, the boy who made the allegations was a cancer patient whose "last wish" was to meet Jackson at a time that his friends and family feared his illness was worsening.

Sadly, according to my source, the health condition of the boy involved is still in jeopardy — a situation that should add to the melodrama of an already shocking and headline-making story.

Oh for heavens sake!

GregM · November-19th-2003, 07:46 PM

Kinda depends on whether he's guilty, eh?

GoodSpeak · November-19th-2003, 07:56 PM

Oh my GOD!

Are we trying Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion without the evidence even being heard?

[GASP!]

I just can't bear to read this thread....er, no wait, um...I am so disgusted I wanted to hurl my monitor across...no, that's not it either. What would be a good response....um....

Ah, HA! I know!

GoodSpeak is such an jerkwad. Let's all gang up on his sorry ass. Yeah, that's it!

The bastard.

las.vegas.lynn · November-19th-2003, 09:47 PM

I believe they saw him leaving Las Vegas in a white Ford Bronco.

mke · November-20th-2003, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gentle Giant
I'm sure there are a lot of inmates that would be glad to have Michael Jackson join their community.

To further their music careers?

mke · November-20th-2003, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
Oh my GOD!

Are we trying Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion without the evidence even being heard?

[GASP!]

I just can't bear to read this thread....er, no wait, um...I am so disgusted I wanted to hurl my monitor across...no, that's not it either. What would be a good response....um....

Ah, HA! I know!

GoodSpeak is such an jerkwad. Let's all gang up on his sorry ass. Yeah, that's it!

The bastard.

What's with the persecution complex?

Pete C · November-20th-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mke
What's with the persecution complex?

He can't afford a military-industrial complex.

claude · November-20th-2003, 08:20 AM

Heard on the radio this morning:

Young boy is very confused and asks his mother, is god a man or a woman?

Mother responds, not knowing quite what to say, I believe that god is both.

Not any less confused the boy asks, is god black or white?

Going with the theme from her first answer, the mother replies god is both black and white.

Then the boy asks is god homosexual or straight?

The mother answers, you guessed it, both.

Finally the light comes on, so Michael Jackson IS God!