I heard he paid millions to a family to not go on with a prosecution against him
2006-09-25 23:35:15 · 17 answers · asked by Rio Man 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
No he is not!! The only reason he paid them off is because he didn't want it to ruin his reputation but that just opened the door to all the gold diggers! But the joke is on the last accuser and his family cause Michael chose to fight back and they didn't get a friggin dime!! LOL
♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥
2006-09-26 00:15:37 · answer #1 · answered by ♥Stranger In Maine™♥ (Thriller) 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile way back when. There was a series on FBI profilers investigating a child rapist and he's telling what to look for and I don't know why but I noticed the things he pointed out fir old Mike. Hanging around children. Having children for friends instead of adults and occasionally socializing with adults to not be too obvious. He fought the accusation this time because he didn't have 22 million dollars to pay the family to keep quiet. This makes the third high profile case. There were 2 others including one that he paid 2 million to the family years ago. And they have him with children. Speaking of which. Am I the only one who knows that those are NOT his biological children?
2006-09-26 06:41:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
if you are a logical person, yes he is a stinking pedophile. how could anyone still believe in his innocence is still beyond me. he paid millions the first time to hush it up, and Janet Jackson and all his loyal fans say "it's just so not to drag that innocent kid through mud just to prove Michael's innocence." can you accept that kind of logic? and the best way of protecting a child is by showing him that crime does pay? that child will grow up with the knowledge that you can get quick easy money by framing celebrities. damn, wish those idiot would used their brain and think. everytime you buys ones of his recording ....... YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE HUSH FUND?
2006-09-26 07:30:48 · answer #3 · answered by AlfRed E nEuMaN 4 preSIDent 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If youre looking for real information, go this website, if youre just looking to screw with people on Yahoo like a d u m b a s s then dont. But this is for anyone who has 5 minutes of their time to expand their knowledge and see an unbiased opinion. (which most of you havent) Here is the link:
http://members.aol.com/mjnfc/pageone.html
2006-09-29 16:51:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not let my Child near him , But he's never been judged guilty I do not like to condemn people with out proof ,,what the news says does not count as proof
2006-09-26 06:41:21 · answer #5 · answered by learningnewthings 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes of course he is+the families he paid off are just as guilty.
by letting themselves get paid to keep quiet they have put more kids in danger,b******s
2006-09-26 06:39:52 · answer #6 · answered by bigbadbald33 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
yep - a 100% dyed in the wool kiddie-fiddler pervo nonce
2006-09-26 06:37:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes
2006-09-26 07:36:09 · answer #8 · answered by jeanjean 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes he is. Wonder why he keeps getting acquitted on child molest charges tho.
2006-09-26 06:43:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No jut a paedophile,he is a freak
2006-09-26 06:39:07 · answer #10 · answered by Pauline 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋