-116

Michael Jackson sexually abused young children, amirite?

38%Yeah You Are62%No Way
Use_My_Names avatar
Share
0 25
The voters have decided that Use_My_Name is wrong! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

I wish there was a "i have no freaking idea" button.

Anonymous +20Reply

In court he was proved not guilty? O.o

Dess avatar Des No Way +6Reply

Sorry, but in court you are innocent until proven guilty. No matter how creepy you find him, there were too many holes in the prosecution's argument and not enough evidence. Which is why he was ultimately found to be innocent.

Anonymous +6Reply

In Michael's case, people took a believable situation and exploited it for monetary gain. Everyone knew he loved kids, maybe even to an odd extent, but he was very open about his mission to HELP children. The only evidence was one family's testimony of this allegded molestation. Furthurmore when the child was questioned his story changed each time, he slipped and confessed that his parents coached him on what to say, and the family basically admitted they were out for money. but oh no that doesnt get broadcasted, people just want to talk shit, nothing new.
oh and btw i bet you would be kinda creepy if you were abused, had no outside life besides a demanding career, and pretty much didnt have a childhood.

Long story short:
There was absolutely NO evidence to prove his guilt. The people accusing him were just trying to get money from him.

INB4 LEAVE MICHAEL ALONE!

I'm not sure whether he was guilty or not but I always thought he was creepy... haha

You see? This is an obvious YYA, but the stupid bitches that vote are just butthurt, because they like him.

Anonymous -9Reply
@You see? This is an obvious YYA, but the stupid bitches that vote are just butthurt, because they like him.

or because there was absolutely no evidence and the person who tried to sue him just wanted his money

Anonymous +8Reply
This comment was deleted by its author.
@1171301

thats stupid. you're stupid.

Anonymous +7Reply
@thats stupid. you're stupid.

(i still keel u): :(

Anonymous 0Reply

I take it you knew him personally? I think the very fact of him appearing in court is proof enough that he did it. If it was a vicious rumour, it would most definitely have gone under the radar.

Use_My_Names avatar Use_My_Name Yeah You Are -13Reply
This user has deactivated their account.
@1171302

You can't really clump plebeian cases with celebrity cases. High-profile people have an obvious advantage in the judicial system. Most charges and accusations on celebrities are dropped or dismissed because of their monetary power. You need real, undeniable evidence to bring a celebrity to court.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all celebrities that go to court are guilty, but it greatly increases the likelihood of their guilt. Can anyone name a single celebrity who was wrongfully found guilty?

DanielJamess avatar DanielJames Yeah You Are +2Reply
@DanielJames You can't really clump plebeian cases with celebrity cases. High-profile people have an obvious advantage in the...

In all fairness, celebrities get sued for the pettiest things because people know they can get lots of money out of them. Also, you shouldn't be allowed to convict anyone without 'real, undeniable evidence'. If the prosecution didn't have that, then there is no case.

Does Jesus count?

Kaylees avatar Kaylee No Way +4Reply
@Kaylee In all fairness, celebrities get sued for the pettiest things because people know they can get lots of money out...

Yes, celebrities are sued or accussed of something by greedy people all the time but most of those never make it to court, like I said.

And you misconstrued my words. You need real evidence to even bring a celebrity to court. In plebeian cases, all you need is an accusation. I wasn't talking about convictions.

And no, Jesus does not count. We are talking about the modern court system.

DanielJamess avatar DanielJames Yeah You Are 0Reply
@DanielJames Yes, celebrities are sued or accussed of something by greedy people all the time but most of those never make it to...

All they had against MJ was accusations. It's not like OJ who tried running from the police and had so much evidence against him. They had very little on Michael. And it's still wrong to assume his guilt just because he's famous.

Kaylees avatar Kaylee No Way +1Reply
@Kaylee All they had against MJ was accusations. It's not like OJ who tried running from the police and had so much...

I wasn't even talking about the MJ trial above. I was showing that there is distinct difference between plebeian cases and high-profile cases.

DanielJamess avatar DanielJames Yeah You Are 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.