Did michael jackson really touch that kid?

Answer 1

yes i am the kid.

Answer 2

June 14, 2005) - Michael Jackson was found not guilty of all charges by a California jury. Accused of numerous counts of child molestation, the jury decided to free Michael Jackson because, as one juror said after the trial, "The evidence was just not there." An examination of that "inadequate" evidence leads to the conclusion that equipping underage children with crotch cameras is the only way to protect them from molestation by members of America's popular nobility.

The evidence against Jackson included eye witness testimony of the alleged molestation: the child Jackson was accused of molesting testified under oath that Jackson had put his hand down the boy's pants and "fondled" his genitals; another child--the brother of Jackson's accuser--also testified that he witnessed Jackson's hand in his brother's pants. Additional eyewitness testimony was presented by persons who either claimed to have been molested by Jackson when they were minors or had seen Jackson molest other minors. Determining that this eye witness testimony was not sufficient to convict Michael Jackson, the jury decided to set Jackson free.

If the evidence presented at Jackson's trial cannot lead a jury to convict, what evidence would? If the eye witness testimony of a molested child is not to be believed, even when that testimony is validated by the eye witness testimony of a bystander, what would it take to successfully prosecute a child molester if that person is a member of the popular nobility?

It is obvious that Jackson's membership in the nobility played a part in his exoneration. His legal defense was one only the nobility could mount. And every person must admit that the fact that Michael Jackson was once known as the King of Pop had some influence in the jury's decision.

Deep down, nobody is surprised. Throughout the course of western civilization the lower classes have always tended to believe members of the nobility were to be judged by different standards than those used in judging the lower classes.

Can anyone deny that that pattern appears to be reappearing in this generation as a string of high profile cases involving the popular nobility--the kings and dukes and popular potentates like O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, and now Michael Jackson--all received not guilty verdicts from California juries, letting the nobles walk free as a bird as their alleged victims rotted in the ground or languished as social outcasts forever labeled as de facto perjurers rather than molestation victims.

Under these circumstances, any parent must reassess what is required to protect their children from molesters.

Answer 3

He did do some incorrect thing like having the kid sleep in his bed. He might have even cuddled with him, who knows. maybe the boy was told to be affectionate to M.J. by his parents so there could be a payout. The only people who know what really happened was M.J. and the kid. Whoever is lying will have to stand judgment for eternity. Karma, what goes around, come around.

Answer 4

H*ll no!! He would never harm any child in any way! That was just gold diggers with a get rich quick scheme!!

♥♥We Love You Michael!!!!♥♥

Answer 5

NO i dont think so - he may have crossed the line abit by sleeping with the kid but he is no child molerster..

Answer 6

sure he did.and he just got off free. ? he is a molerster .and he don't care he keep getting away with it ..but one day he well pay for his sin........and then we all well be there....

Answer 7

No one will know for sure if he is a child molestor or not. In my opinion, he's not a child molestor.

Answer 8

i think so. why else would he of paid the family off

Answer 9

nope

Answer 10

what are you asking ME for?