Comments by "Michael Jackson\x27s a Guilty Preferential Pea Dough" (@michaeljacksonsaguiltypref3600) on "COURT TV" channel.

  1.  @oxid71  I also agree.
    2
  2. Yes, he said he found out that Michael Jackson was guilty of doing far worse to boys than m*lesting them.
    2
  3.  @BabyGirlTiny  other what?
    1
  4.  @elenanegrea3123  they didn't know that Michael Jackson was a pedo.
    1
  5. I feel bad for the kids he abused.
    1
  6. Money is Justice, it is compensatory Justice. Money pays for therapy to help you heal. They'll get the recognition that they are survivors, that's what they deserve. I've studied the cases from unbiased sources (Court documents and transcripts, experts, law officials, lawyers etc) = MJ was guilty.
    1
  7. He touched him in multiple locations
    1
  8. Are they pro Michael Jackson?
    1
  9.  @EazyRocko  it was hush money according to His own lawyer Carl Douglas who said they paid to silence the accuser and it was not the insurance who paid, it was Michael Jackson.
    1
  10.  @elisabettabergese8140  hi, you posted no facts. The opinion from the general public is correct. MJ did not want a criminal trial, he wanted to avoid it at all costs. Evan Chandler would have had a criminal trial but Michael Jackson paid him off. It would not have given away the defense to prosecution if the civil trial went first, because if they changed their evidence afterwards, the defense would have pointed this out to discredit them. If Michael Jackson was innocent there will be nothing to hide. After the civil trial, the Chandlers did not proceed with the criminal trial because they were paid off to not proceed with the criminal trial. Evan did not run with the money, he was paid to not continue with the criminal case. Jordan was given most of the money and Evan was given some as well as Jordan's mother June. Evan did not abandon his son, after Jordan emancipated from his parents he carried on living with his father Evan for several years. When Jordan was 18, he filed another lawsuit against Michael in 1998 along with his father. There was so much evidence and that is the reason why Michael Jackson paid them off. Michael Jackson's own lawyer Carl Douglas said that the reason why Michael Jackson settled was to "Silence the accuser" to obviate the criminal case. Evan was not caught admitting the whole thing was an extortion scheme in a tapped phone call. The phone call recording was deceitfully edited by crook Anthony Pellicano who is working for Michael Jackson. Even so, nowhere in the phone call recording did Evan ever mention a scheme to extort money from Michael Jackson.
    1
  11.  @ChokeslamToHell  yes, he was initially offered it and he turned it down.
    1
  12.  @ChokeslamToHell  no, he turnded down the Cirque du Soleil position because he had other work commitments such as the movie, he was going through an emotional time after having his son and the effects of the trauma from the abuse starting to get worse.
    1
  13.  @neithyjohnson1066  he lied in 2005 to protect his abuser because he didn't realise that the relationship he had with Michael Jackson was abuse until after he had his first child.
    1
  14.  @dolly-gq9lr  he turned it down initially, then he changed his mind. What's your point?
    1
  15.  @dolly-gq9lr  maybe or maybe not. That does not mean that the allegations are false.
    1
  16.  @vivp9593  there was evidence for the criminal case in 1993 that's why Michael Jackson settled to "silence the accuser" in order to "obviate the criminal case", these other words of Carl Douglas who was Michael Jackson's attorney 1993. The reason why there was a case that went to court in 2005 is because Michael Jackson could no longer settle out to obviate the criminal case said Carl Douglas. There was no falsification of dates or evidence by the prosecution. You have done no research, you have only believed lies.
    1
  17.  @dolly-gq9lr  "in your book", what do you believe is irrelevant. He knows he was abused by Michael Jackson, whether you like it or not.
    1
  18.  @dolly-gq9lr  no, it is not relevant. What do you believe does not determine whether someone was abused or not. People can lie under oath. He is now telling the truth about him being abused. It is going to trial, he has said that he lied because he was defending Michael Jackson. He was abused. If the estate pay a settlement it shows that they are admitting guilt.
    1
  19. ​ @dolly-gq9lr  it is not relevant. You obviously do not understand the effects abuse has on a survivor. It is well known within psychology that survivors often will not reveal that they have been abused for many years and sometimes never at all. He is telling the truth now about being abused by Michael Jackson.
    1
  20.  @MrBibi86  they are specifically referring to the 1993 case.
    1
  21. ​​ @MrBibi86 no, Michael Jackson paid them off to not peruse the criminal case. Don't you think that it's suspicious that Michael Jackson paid them off with millions of Dollars after the description the boy gave of Michael Jackson's privates matched to obviate the criminal case? Michael Jackson and his lawyers wanted to avoid the criminal case at all costs. I've listened to the phone call recording that was the chiefly edited by Anthony Pellicano, there is no mention of them being after money. Jordan Chandler never said that Michael Jackson did not touch him. Everything you said is false.
    1
  22. No
    1
  23.  @Snyper1405  that doesn't make any sense. Michael Jackson was a pedo who sleeps with boys. Do you also sleep with boys?
    1
  24. She was threatened to not reveal what she knew in court.
    1
  25. She is definitely a biased Michael Jackson Stan.
    1
  26. So was OJ Simpson.
    1
  27.  @jonelrobinson2231  I wouldn't call hundreds of photos of naked children nothing.
    1
  28.  @Snyper1405  were you in bed with them?
    1
  29.  @mjmedia09returns  Brooke Shields was not his girlfriend, James was his boyfriend / fiance.
    1
  30. The victims know and they're still alive.
    1
  31. He never defended himself when he WAS here either. He paid off multiple victims multiple millions of Dollars to avoid defending himself in court. The one time he did go to court, he never defended himself and refused to take the stand. Stop defending that criminal, he's dead.
    1
  32. No, a better question is why would Michael Jackson abuse boys that he was entrusted with?
    1
  33.  @neithyjohnson1066  his victims did
    1
  34. No
    1
  35. He was not proven innocent, he was found not guilty. However, as a verdict, "not guilty" means the fact finder finds that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof. A not guilty verdict does not mean that the defendant truly is innocent but rather that for legal purposes they will be found not guilty because the prosecution did not meet the burden. R Kelly received the same verdict in 2008.
    1
  36. Exactly, some victims never disclose that they were abused. Wade and James are very brave for coming forward.
    1
  37.  @EazyRocko  Jimmy Savile was never proven to be a Child abuser in a court of law. We have the victims testimonies like we have Michael Jackson's victims testimonies. Many of Jimmy Savile's victims didn't come forward until after Savile had died and they were adults.
    1
  38.  @EazyRocko  I would want money for damages if Michael Jackson had abused me. I don't know if I would be as brave as these two men though, even for money. There's no guarantee that they get money, there is no way that they would be exposing themselves to all this hate unless they were really abused.
    1
  39.  @elenanegrea3123  that's because stans don't like facts. You're boring me with your excuses for Michael Jackson's pedophilic behaviour.
    1
  40.  @christaylor7916  aww you're also arguing on this video too. I'll never stop exposing Michael Jackson until the whole world knows he's guilty. When are you going to give up obsessively defending a deceased nonce?? Cope harder.
    1
  41. Amen
    1
  42. I hope he wins. He should give some of thw money to Gavin as well.
    1
  43. He liked little white butts and he cannot lie The other pedos can't deny
    1
  44. ​ @neithyjohnson1066 they knew what they did but they didn't realise that it was abuse.
    1
  45. Michael jackson is guilty.
    1
  46. But CSA is fine?
    1
  47. You're damn right!
    1
  48.  @EazyRocko  there is lots of evidence of his guilt. R Kelly was also found not guilty on 14 counts in 2008. Not guilty does not mean innocent. There are no proven lies in the accuser stories. Inconsistencies is common in stories of CSA victims. The Arvisos never wanted any money. Wanting money as compensation is not an indication that abuse did not occur. The police were involved in several of the victims' cases. The first accuser has not come out and said that their father made them lie for money. You need to do YOUR research because everything that you said was a LIE.
    1
  49. ​​​​ @JacksonStar4757 he fit all the characteristics. There are different types of pedo, he was a preferential. He likely had many more victims, but only needs one to be guilty. He had at least 7 known accusers that have not been found to be lying. They are all credible. You are biased.
    1
  50. Very obsessed
    1