Probably how well he can lie about it. How much he pays his doctor to state that in his opinion he suffers from mental illness. Yes he will still see an independant phsychiatrist but I'm sure he can be convincing (rabbit, headlights?)- after all he's flying, childish Peter Pan don't you know. Like I've said before this is his 'get of jail card'. He knows damned well what he is doing.

Professional assessment simply means observing his behaviour and sometimes carrying out some psychometric/personality tests (I do know a bit about Psychology).  If he simply lying they could detect it but not necessarily - many people have faked mental illness and Drs. do disagree over diagnosis.  As I said earlier, if he is trying to fake mental illness then he still has problems that need to be dealt with.

Edit to add: when I referred to supposition in my other post I was referring to your comment about 'what else has he done'

What do you mean, 'other problems'? If found guilty and he doesn't have a mental illness then he is a paedophile (this is not another 'problem' this is a criminal offence) - full stop. You can't clutch at straws and say "oh it must be that he has 'other problems'"

I think he's a victim of his own success and an easy target for those gold diggers looking for a quick buck.  Don't get me wrong, I think his behaviour was inappropriate, but I don't think he's a paedophile.

Given his history (excuse the pun), why were these parents letting their children stay there anyway?

You're right, the parents should know better. If he is found guilty of abuse and plying a child with alcohol, would you still say that behaviour inappropriate or he was a paedophile?

I don't believe he actually touched the children in an inappropriate manner (which, yes, would make him a paedophile), just that his actions (i.e. sleeping in the same bed as them etc) were inappropriate.  The court's verdict won't change my opinion as I feel that the judge has been against him from the start and that it's been a very unfair trial.  Just my opinion.

The boys at work keep telling me that if he's found guilty they think I'll be coming to work with a 'free the Jackson one' banner!  :rolleyes:
However, I think he'll commit suicide if he's sent to prison.

What would it take for you to believe he is guilty? Does anyone know why he didn't take the stand? Surely he should have been cross examined just like the boy. I really believe that even if he made a statement to the press that he 'did it' MJ fans still wouldn't accept he was guilty - they'd say he was "forced to say it - poor thing" or "his mental illness made him confess" The man is a liar, remeber the Martin B interview? MJ sat there and actually said he had only had 1 dose of plastic surgery, then he changed it to 2 - surely he would remember if it was twice. His nose has changed at least five times (excluding when it was sewn back on) His chin, cheeks. He said all this change to his face was down to hime changing with age. 

Right, hands up everyone who woke up with a new chin, nose and cheekbones today. :-D
I'm 32 now but maybe when I reach 40 eh?

The problems I was referring to were those that cause him to have children sleeping in his bed, give them alcohol (although lots of adults let children drink alcohol - and no I don't agree with that either!) and so on.

I'm not clutching at straws, I am keeping an open mind regarding whether he is guilty or not until he is found guilty - something which I feel is everyones entitlement.  It seems to me that in your eyes he is guilty until found guilty and if he was found innocent, then the jury must be blinded by his fame.

If he is found guilty and the law/drs decide he has no mental illness (although I would argue paedophilia is a mental illness) then what do you suggest?  He goes to prison and comes out unchanged ready to do it again?  Or as I said gets help to change his behaviour (albeit in prison) and hopefully never reoffends.

I am sorry, but I do feel that you are ready to lynch him based on the fact he held his baby from the balcony!!! and if you were on the jury you would have found him guilty before any evidence was given - JMO

PS with regard to him lying about his plastic surgery - has it occurred to you that he may be deeply embarrassed about it??? With regard to Martin Bashir I thought he was two faced and I have no regard for him whatsoever now.

And can I just restate that I am NOT a Michael Jackson FAN!

I find it strange that none of the now "famous" i.e maculey Culkin, Wade Robson etc, boys  have not come forward and said that he touched them in an inappropriate manner, he had these two stay over at his house on many an occasion and sleep in his room etc. 

well if he had I doubt they would come forward as they wouldnt want that sort of publicity :(

Me too.

Amanda - if he said he was guilty then, yes, of course I would believe it.  But I agree with JMO - why hasn't it happened to any of these other children?  Maybe because they're not after his money?

Also, why did Martin Bashir plead the fifth?  He was there, he saw how Michael was with the children ... but maybe telling the truth would reveal that his documentary was edited to show what he / the producers wanted to be seen to get viewing figures.

I total agree Earl.  Martin Bashirs documentary was very biased - even as a viewer I thought he was wrong in what he was doing - two faced.

Macauley  Culkin has actually said that nothing like that ever happened to him while there and was reported to be angry that he was being dragged in to speak against MJ.

Earl, you said in your earlier post that the court verdict won't change your opinion. Then you said if he was found guilty you would beleive it. How can you say the judge was against him from the start? He was repremanded for taking the mick-late for court because he would rather stand on his car waving to his fans, which was totally inappropriate considering the serious charges against him, late twice more. The judge was more than fair, he was treated like any other member of the public. Lying about being mishandled by the police when searched - he said that they had caused damage to his arm - he actually went on tape complaining of the pain and how he couldn't raise or move it.. But look at the evidence video of him coming out of the police station that day and also the next. He was waving his 'poorly' arm about. He wanted sympathy from his fans. He filed a complaint to the authorities until he was challenged by their video evidence and suddenly he dropped the allegations. Liar? Dolly dreamland? Or just Peter Pan/child making another mistake. What I find unfair is that MJ did not take the stand to be cross examined like the child did.

No, I said, if he said he was guilty (in reply to your post) then, yes, I would believe it.  The court verdict won't change my mind at all.  To be honest, now it's here, I can't bear to listen.  I agree with you that MJ should have taken the stand, but maybe he was advised against it for whatever reason.

I do feel that the judge was unfair and against MJ from the start in his rulings of what was inadmisable, what was over-ruled etc.  I don't think MJ's a liar, a child in a man's body, maybe.  I think he's trying to get the childhood now that he missed out on as a child. IMO he's a victim of his own success and it's all very sad that this man who was such a brilliant and entertaining performer is now nothing more than a target for those seeking an easy buck.

He's just been found not guilty of ALL charges!

Not Guilty.......on all counts....say whatever you like now, as long as its nothing detrimental of course ;) :D

Not *shouting* this time either Mel :D

just remembered to take caps off :D