Reply with your answer!!!

Jun 13, 2005 22:11

Is Michael Jackson guilty or innocent?
Let me know what you think.
I want a well drawn out debate.
Theres no right or wrong answer.

I didn't really follow up on the case myself. Thats why I want YOU to comment and let me know what you think and if you agree/disagree on the courts decision.

Leave a comment

Comments 62

xo_lila_xo June 14 2005, 02:20:37 UTC
He Is Guilty All The Way
No Doubt About It
The Only Reason He Got Off Is Because Hes Rich And Famous
You Are Stupid If You Thought Hed Get Convicted

Michael Jakson Is Guilty!!

Reply

dirrtysunshin3 June 14 2005, 02:22:54 UTC
I dont know if the only reason he got off is beacuse he's rich & famous. But i do kinda think he should be convicted. I mean, Jesus Juice? that shit isnt normal.

Reply


__loveandlies June 14 2005, 02:22:10 UTC
i dont know. yes i know damn well hes a creep
but .. i mean why would anyone do that. i didnt
follow up on the case either so i dont really
know. a part of me thinks hes guilty and the other
part is for inocent. i miss the thriller days.

Reply

dirrtysunshin3 June 14 2005, 02:28:38 UTC
MJ is deff. a creep. Some say the 13 year old made it up because of financial difficulties in his family. That is so wrong. I doubt that was the case. I dont know if i should lean twards yes or no. The thriller days were deff. better. This whole thing could of possibly been a publicity stunt also. But if it was, it was a bad move and got wayyyy out of hand. But im sure that wasnt it either.

Reply


anonymous June 14 2005, 02:25:02 UTC
michael jackson is guilty but this trial was really gay cuz it shuldnt have even been this big of a deal. it is just like any other trial and hes just a loser. if he was found guilty it wuldve just kept going on and on and on and on and it wuldve been so fricken annoying im glad its over

Reply

dirrtysunshin3 June 14 2005, 02:30:41 UTC
That is true. I think they handled the case in an immature way. I mean didnt that kid get "molested" by MJ like 10 years ago? Why not of dealt with it THEN instead of 10 years later? Thats where it gets me. But im glad its finally over too. It was deff. annoying, thanks Eric!=)

Reply


cherry_choke June 14 2005, 02:26:49 UTC
I think he was guilty i mean come on.little kids sleeping in the same bed with him.....thats weird. but w/e they found him innocent. i think he did do something to some of the kids but the kids who were the witnesses were put up to it by their parents.

Reply

dirrtysunshin3 June 14 2005, 02:32:30 UTC
Owe yeah. I forgot about that sleeping in the same bed incident. That is a little creepy. So now that kind of has me thinking, what makes them think nothing went on in the bed? If he claims nothing went on while in that bed why couldnt the kids just have slept in another bed..or another room?

Reply


anonymous June 14 2005, 02:36:57 UTC
he is guilty, plain and simple. did you see him today on the t.v he was scared shitless. and the sad thing is he can never go back to court on child molestation because that would be double jepordy, which i think is stupid because he wasn't convicted. but you knew right away that he would get off just because of his name and what he did in the 80's. the whole system is screwed up. alot of celebraties get off, look at O.J Simpson and Robert Blake. both killed their wives and got off. celebraties and humans just like us, so shouldn't they get the same treatment as everyone else who does something wrong????

Reply

dirrtysunshin3 June 14 2005, 02:41:05 UTC
NICE!!! that was really good & thought out well! That kind of does make me want to lean twards him being guilty. Who are you because that was a kickass answer!!!!

Reply

anonymous June 14 2005, 02:56:59 UTC
me and amanda were talking.... 10 years ago he paid that kid who was accusing him millions of dollars. and now he doesn't. what was he hiding back then to shut the kid and his family up? even though he was begin accused of the same crime? it just doesn't make sense. on the t.v the reporters were saying that while the jury told him not guilty, that m.j was emotionless. wouldn't an innocent man be filled with emotion, of happiness, a sigh of relief ????? this just doesn't add up.

Reply

dirrtysunshin3 June 14 2005, 03:19:08 UTC
exactly. like i said to you earlier, if he was emotionless he must be hiding something and he knew he dont wrong and had to await his punishment. its insane. and he had like triple the money back then so why not just pay someone millions of dollars to keep a secret? seriously..

Reply


Leave a comment

Up