is michael Jackson innocent or guilty of child molestation?

I personally think that he is innocent.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly like MJ or his music. I am not a fan in the least. But he is almost certainly innocent of child molestation.

Didn't it come out that the mother of the supposed victim was a scam artist and had tried to use her child (or maybe this was the first time she tried to use the child? I don't remember) to scam people in similar ways?

 

I think hes just a silly old man, honestly.

 

none of us know

 

Hasnt he been accused twice?

 

Honestly he was a powerful/rich man so people are obvious try to take advantage when they can, and on the other hand he was boy in a mans body and definitely strayed from the norm. So IDK, lets just let him RIP.

 

INNOCENT!! people are just desperate for money these days theyd try anything...... simple

 

Well said.

 

My heart lays with the South Park episode of him.

 

cause if its on south park.. it must be real

 

theres a lot of people with money and you dont see them getting arrested for CM, and paying it off to avoid courts...

and why is it that with Domestic Violence the State supersedes the victim and prosecutes..
But with Child molestation it lets the Perpetrators free cause they have money??

Well we all know Judges and lawyers are the biggest down\loaders of kiddy porn ..

 

But they didn't hang around with children all day. The kids' parents recognized that accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation, even without any actual evidence could seem like a credible story to a jury. Accusing someone who never has contact with children without any actual evidence would seem completely unfounded.

There's no evidence or reason to believe that he's guilty. And judging by his personality and what anybody who knew him said, he most likely wasn't. He was a very gentle, good-spirited and childlike person and the whole neverland thing was his attempt to have a childhood. I don't think think that would include molesting children.

So I don't know. And none of you do either.

Also, it's a logical fallacy to state that because he could afford good lawyers and was acquitted then he must be guilty.

 

in my book when a grown man sleeps in the same bed with a child that is not his (something he admitted),its pedophilia..

one doesnt have to have any form of sexual relations to be molested.

so yes,in my mind he is guilty of child molestation.

 

guilty as a Catholic priest---i hope he suffered terribley

 

Fair enough. But in this case the word "molestation" doesn't have a negative connotation.

 

i find it very negative.

 

Even though no harm was caused to anyone. Okay then. Our ethical philosophy must be different.

 

no harm done? where is macaulay culkin now?

i rest my case..

seriously,if you see nothing wrong with grown men sleeping with other peoples kids,never ever come whithin 100 feet of my grand kids or ill cut your nuts off.

 

^^^^^--no harm done--what planet do u live on?

man some of u people are in denile---just give the kid jesus juice and all is well although he probablyy wont shit right for week

 

That case is even weaker than the actual case. Which was so weak it didn't stand up in court.

I only consider something morally wrong if it hurts somebody. The issue is whether or not Michael Jackson did anything bad to the kid, especially something that warrants a lawsuit, not whether or not we, in our prejudice and hatred, agree with the way someone lives their life.