Who here thinks Michael Jasckson was innocent? Who thinks he was guilty?? Why??
**I asked a Q earlier about jesus juice... MJ came up.. so i figured I would ask.
2007-08-06 02:47:54 · 22 answers · asked by Lauren. 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I am still on the fence... after all the boy's family was a bunch of gold diggers!!
2007-08-06 02:50:57 · update #1
If he's not guilty, he's sick as hell. That guy either needs jail or a mental ward. Sleeping with kids, even without sexual contact as he alleges, is just messed up.
It's hard to be completely sure though. It sounds pretty bad, but he also sounds like a person who's just crazy enough to be telling the truth.
2007-08-06 02:51:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Can’t help but think this guy actually believes he’s Peter Pan reincarnated.
I suggest he’s naïve, as if his mental gearbox is stuck in adolescent mode (e.g.: like a Disney cartoon).
Now I’m not saying he's done himself any good acting the way he does, I’m just saying I don’t think he’s guilty.
As I recall the defense's presented: didn’t is sound like the mischievous hero "the boy who never grew up,” who would visit the bedrooms of the Darling children (Wendy, John and Michael) and flies them away to Neverland?
Maybe the real truth lies with metal illness brought on by his abused childhood.
2007-08-06 10:17:06 · answer #2 · answered by Freeman 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe he was guilty. I also believe OJ was guilty. And Robert Blake was too. From what I've been reading, I would guess Phil Spector is too. There is so much proof if you look at all the collected evidence; it didn't just appear from nowhere. But obviously I didn't sit on those juries, so those are only my opinions.
2007-08-06 10:00:15 · answer #3 · answered by kaz716 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
More than likely guilty. Because hey he admitted to Sleeping with other peoples children. Any not guilty person would have not slept with someone else's children. So yeah more than likely MJ is guilty. But still has made some good music. But still he's a very guilty weirdo.
2007-08-06 09:57:19 · answer #4 · answered by Misfit_101 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He has the psychological foundation to be a child molestor. His guilt or innocence in the actual matters....probably guilty, but our courts have found him not so. If he is, he is a sick monster (who's starting to look the part!)...if he's truly not guilty, then he really needs to police his own behavior better and stop playing the victim when people complain.
2007-08-06 10:01:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I feel guilty but don't want to say i know for sure as i was not there.
I do feel he put himself in a position where he could be taken advantage of if he is Innocent
2007-08-06 09:56:39 · answer #6 · answered by pestie58 the spider hunter 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In that particular case I'd have to agree, that family would do anything and say anything to get the cash. MJ, though, left himself vulnerable because of his irresponsible behavior with young boys.
2007-08-06 09:54:30 · answer #7 · answered by Murazor 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure if he's guilty or not, but he sure is a freak-job for sure!
I mean he freakin admitted to sharing his bed with underage boys.... If he wasn't molesting them he's STILL got some severe issues, and he needs some major therapy!!
2007-08-06 09:52:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think he was innocent. Or at least that's what the jury thought so I'll default to them. I don't really care on way or the other... I don't know the dude!
2007-08-06 10:03:58 · answer #9 · answered by Cool Dad 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
why is this guy not banged up??? Langham this week has been found guilty of looking at child porn never mind actually being in bed with them so why is mj still roaming free? why do courts allow these types of maniac to pay off the families so they can carry on with their seedy lifestyle??? justice system!!does it not make you wonder what type of lifestyle the judge leads???
2007-08-06 10:00:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋