Hes a perv, I think he was guilty but ive heard people saying he was innocent, was he or not?
p.s. He prob bribed the court.
2007-02-10 07:40:48 · 27 answers · asked by DH 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Celebrities
He was proven not guilty because there wasn't a shred of evidence except the word of a known gold digger (the mom) and a child who's story changed every time he told it! Leave him alone and move on with your life like he has!!
♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥
2007-02-10 14:56:34 · answer #1 · answered by ♥Stranger In Maine™♥ (Thriller) 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
He was found not guilty by the court. This of course (like OJ Simpson) does not change peoples' opinions of whether he was actually guilty or not.
Personally, I think he's a few feathers short of a whole chicken with bird flu. There's something not right going on up there in his head!
2007-02-10 07:50:20 · answer #2 · answered by hevs 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well I don't think there's enough information to ever know. But saying that he's guilty because he looks odd is really unintelligent. Just let the whole thing rest.
2007-02-11 07:50:18 · answer #3 · answered by Jennifer 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
MJ became no longer shown to be in charge yet on the comparable time, he became no longer shown to be harmless. He became acquitted of all quotes, that's something that occurs while there is sufficient existence like doubt shown by using the protection. The prosecution did no longer coach previous a existence like doubt that MJ became in command of the offenses he became charged with committing. consequently, as our justice equipment works, he became acquitted. there'll little question be endless debate relating to the top results of the trial yet what does it rely now? the guy is ineffective. enable or no longer it incredibly is. EMT
2016-10-01 22:26:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was found not guilty by the jury.
Unfortunately the trial didn't "prove" anything either way.
And btw, the jury did NOT say he was "innocent"--juries never say anyone is innocent. The verdict was not guilty
2007-02-12 15:58:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
he was found not guilty.people want to stop saying that he guilty it like they haven't got nothing else better to do than talk bout his life probably cause they have a sad life so want to involve them selves in his i always knew he was INNOCENT any way people get over it it was over ages ago now
2007-02-14 07:37:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
not guilty and he will remain not guilty until proven otherwise.
I say he is not guilty.
If he bribed the court then that says the court is guilty for taking the bribe, the court is guilty too.
2007-02-10 07:46:14 · answer #7 · answered by StarShine G 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
no just because he has always loved kids and had no childhood himself does not make hi a perv why is it that no one complained about him being a perv before the first aligation came out, they thought there was money to be made out of one worried womens case
2007-02-10 07:46:52 · answer #8 · answered by nicki 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, legally he was proven not. I'd like to think, and do think that he's probably innocent. *But* his behavioural overall is still strange, more so bizarre than evil I think.
2007-02-10 07:48:05 · answer #9 · answered by mo79uk 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
in court he was proven not guilty, but a mojorety of us think he is guilty he was taken to court twice about it,and both times he was found not guilty! how many times are they going to let him get away with it.
2007-02-10 07:53:05 · answer #10 · answered by Don 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋