NextEpisode wrote:I second that.
What, however, makes MJ seem like guilty (to most people), is that he himself claimed he had slept "with" kids in the same bed. And instead of proving his case, he "payed off" this family to redraw the case. BUT, I don't know more than anyone else here, so I won't speculate whether he's guilty or not. Imo, he's made several good (some great) songs, that's what I care about.
Wow about being mis-informed.
How about you actually read on the case?
Michael Jackson "paid off" the Chandlers, because it was a CIVIL CLAIM where it only involves MONEY. It was NOT a criminal case. The Chandlers wanted money, they never wanted to press criminal charges, now surely you'd think that if a father who's son had been molested, you'd think he would want that person locked up? No? In a civil claim, there is NEVER guilty or not guilty, it simply liable or not liable.
Btw. In the American justice system, the court and jury, at all times even in a civil claim, the court is allowed to press criminal charges if they believe there is sufficient evidence to do so even if the Chandlers didn't want to do so, but the court RECOGNIZED there was NO evidence even of the slightest to do so.
Michael Jackson was never even put in question of being guilty, as the case was never about being guilty or not guilty.
There is a big difference between a man being a little weird and a pedophile, so please, gets your facts right.