I don't think so, I believed that the verdit was correct during the court (I can't remember the exact thing but one of the kids actually lied to get money and other stuffs).
Another relevant Cracked article. [http://www.cracked.com/article_19552_5-insane-celebrity-conspiracy-theories-that-make-sense.html] And to be honest, there's not a lot about that theory that doesn't make sense, insane as it may seem.Mutant1988 said:-snip-
Oh, that's a good one. While it would seem he was definitely guilty, by what standards do we judge the PotUS?sageoftruth said:This thread gets first prize for the most unusually-timed question I've seen on the Escapist.
While we're on the same subject, is Richard Nixon really a crook?
Oh, there's an unfortunate amount of parents that might.Here Comes Tomorrow said:I don't think he was, simply because if someone molests your child, what parent would accept money over justice?
That seems like some spurious reasoning. And in fact, especially the part about being poor. That's effectively a self-fullfilling prophecy brought about by people who reason the way you do.William Ossiss said:The first time he was accused... I would have said " I don't know for sure."
The second time it happened...
Well, MJ was accused twice. I happen to think that, even if he was found innocent, he really wasn't. There was a reason he was poor as hell after that second case.
I don't disagree with your overall point, but he wasn't proven innocent, he was merely not found to be guilty.CrystalShadow said:Proved innocent in court? Twice?