numonex said:
Michael Jackson paid Chandler Family off to the tune of US $25 million. That is guilty no questions about it. You pay out you are guilty as charged.
Michael Jackson won the 2005 court case by spending $10 million on the same Defence attorney who got "innocent" OJ Simpson off a double felony murder charge. You are friggin kidding me if you believe either OJ Simpson or Michael jackson were both innocent. They bought their freedom because they had very deep pockets.
Having lots of money gets you off on any charge in the US. That is how the judicial system works over there. The rich get off scott free. Michael jackson super rich celebrity. He ticked all the right boxes.
PhoenixKing:
You sound like you are condoning child molestation. Do you support pedophiles? You would take the pedophiles story over the abused innocent victims testimony. No physical evidence has to be provided. It is very easy for a psychiatrist to know if a child has been abused. It shows in the child's behaviour.
|
The Chandler family wasn't paid off. Michael was forced to settle because his lawyers kept botching the case for him because they were getting more money from the case then if they were to beat them in court.
Furthermore, Michael fired his lawyers for the same reason. His Lawyers weren't helping him out at all or doing their job.
The Chandler family got 300 MILLION in total until the day Michael Jackson died since no more money would come there way.
Also, I like how you completely ignore the fact that the apparent victim openly admitted to lying about the entire thing after Michael Jackson's death.
You also try and deviate the topic to a different case entirely. I find it rather odd that you chose two well-known black people (Michael Jackson was born a black man which changed due to a rare skin disease caused when he was set on fire by accident) as examples of injustices when there are many other examples to pick from.
You then, rather immaturely, accuse me of being a supporter for pedophiles, which I find laughable because all I'm doing is defending the innocence and integrity of someone falsely accused who just happens to be famous.
It is clear to me, however, that there is no point in speaking with you on this any further. Your process of thought only appears to go as far as "All rich people are guilty".
You have no definite facts in support for anything to say and quite frankly, you're a joke.
Oh, and before you accuse me of doing the same: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-286274