That so many people in their quest to damn Michael Jackson, go back to the accusations from 15 years ago, and yet seem to have completely forgotten that he was acquitted of sexual abuse charges less than five years ago. And the argument that settling out of court is proof of his guilt is incredibly naive. Michael Jackson would not be the first innocent man to choose a financial settlement over a drawn out criminal proceeding that may or may not conclude with their exoneration. Why are we so suspicious of Michaels motivation for settling, while completely ignoring the motivations of the parents who accepted the money? If someone raped your child, could your silence be bought? How unlucky that kid must have been, to not only have his childhood idol be a sexual predator, but to have been cursed with parents willing to pimp him out to said predator.

The reality is, none of us KNOW what, if anything, Michael Jackson did with kids. He's never been convicted of anything, and since he was acquitted, the evidence brought against him must not have been particularly compelling. So we are left to choose whatever it is we believe about him. So why do so many WANT to believe he was a pedophile?

SouthernDandy:

So why do so many WANT to believe he was a pedophile?

Because the children claimed Jackson fed them alcohol then touched their penises.

I think the real question is, why do people have such a hard time seeing this man was a pedophile? 

Badbone:

SouthernDandy:

So why do so many WANT to believe he was a pedophile?

Because the children claimed Jackson fed them alcohol then touched their penises.

I think the real question is, why do people have such a hard time seeing this man was a pedophile?

I'm not taking sides on this, but what you're saying is hardly what I'd call substantiated fact. This isn't to say that his innocence is a foregone conclusion, but you do play into the OP's when your rebuttal is, essentially, "because."

Right, I understand that. He was accused of a crime. He was tried. He was acquitted. So many of you get stuck on the "accused" part and forget everything that came after.

Whats really intriguing is that people are damning Jackson for something they themselves are guilty of. No, not pedophilia, but a lack of faith in the criminal justice system. As I said, most people rest their belief in his guilt on the fact that he settled out of court in 1993. "If he was innocent, why settle?" as if the assumption is that the courts and juries always come to the right conclusion. Yet, if these same people truly believed that, then we wouldn't be having these conversations. If they trusted the justice system as much as they say Jackson should have, then his acquittal in 2005 would have wiped the slate clean for him. And yet we have an elected essentially shoutnig to the world that this recently deceased man who'd been convicted of no crime is a "pervert", a "low-life", and that the world is a better place after his death.

I don't assume he is a pedophile because of the out any out of court settlements. I assume he is because he was on TV saying he likes to have childeren sleep in his bed, and because I've read that he had an alarm system setup to warn him as people approached his bedroom.

<link>

There are countless other examples of behavior that points to inappropriate behaviour with his children guests. To me they add up to the fact that MJ was likely a pedophile. I could be wrong (and since I'm wasn't on any jury, it really doesn't matter if i'm right or wrong), but I'd say there is enough evidence that a reasonable person could suspect him of being a pedophile.

The alarm system does seem suspicious when taken out of context. However, once you understand that his entire house was wired with hundreds of thousands of dollars in security and surveillance equipment, including infrared beams covering the outdoors, mics and cameras throughout the house to keep tabs on his staff, and even a "panic" room, you begin to see that bedroom security less as the tools of a sexual predator and the manifestation of a profound paranoia.

And that's just it. There was a jury of presumably reasonable people who saw the evidence against him and still found him not guilty. So was Michael lucky enough to get a jury of 12 completely unreasonable people? Trying to presume what Michael Jackson was doing is pointless. We can all agree: he was the strangest person on the planet over the last decade or so of his life. Nothing he did made any sense. He's reached this level of notoriety where someone could accuse him of anything and, no matter how ridiculous, you'd have to give it some thought. How do ou predict the behavior of someone like that? How can you assume what he did with kids in his bedroom? I'm with you, having kids in your bed is inappropriate. But why do you assume his motives were predatory? Maybe all they were doing was sleeping. Sleeping with little boys seesm strange to us, but would probably seem less weird to someone who grew up sleeping in the same bed with his five brothers.

so i guess you believe OJ was innocent as well? because your argument about the jury makes it seem that you would. by not being on the jury one can look at things that people on the jury cannot (like the accused having prior complaints against them that would be not allowed in a trial as they would prejudice the jury). plus, MJ going on national TV and saying that he had boys sleep in his bed was not part of the trial as far as i know.

again, what i believe about mj is really inconsequential. would i vote to convict him if i were on the jury, maybe not, because i believe in the basic tenets of our legal system (innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt). but that doesn't mean that not being on the jury i can't objectively sit here and say, "yea, i belive he likely did it".

He was acquitted...but the Con mentality never cares about that...they are still convinced based on knowing NOTHING, based on nothing but media rumors and hateful, hustling con artists on television who make money off this witch hunting.

Remember when these looney tunes had some congressman convicted of Jennifer Levin's death and ran him out of Washington? The real killer showed up recently, but the media barely mentioned it. I hope they burn in hell, all of these media whores.

Its WITCH HUNTING. That is what they DO, these cons, they've been doing it for thousands of years, telling people to jump in the water and if they float, they are a witch. These people are just sick is all. They are not happy unless they have someone to bash 24/7. Its evidently what they live for.

I'm not privy to what evidence was introduced during the Michael Jackson trial, but I have a hard time believing that jurors weren't made aware of his habit of sleeping with children, if not through Jackson's own TV interview, then through other witness testimony. And in the unlikely event that it was disallowed, you suggested before that there was a preponderence of evidence that should should have led to his conviction.

And can you really "objectively" accuse someone of sexual assault? Maybe if you view everything through the most cynical prism. Why is it "likely" that he abused those boys? Because he's strange? Because he was accused more than once?

And for the record, I did think OJ should have been acquitted, due to the fact that the glove that was allegedly worn by the killer didn't fit and Mark Fuhrman's false testimony. And given your stated belied in innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm sure you felt the same way.

SouthernDandy:

Why is it "likely" that he abused those boys? Because he's strange? Because he was accused more than once?

Because the boys said he abused them. I don't see why you give their testimony so little weight, but we should give so much to his. More than one boy, on more than one occasion, told police that Michael Jackson gave them "Jesus Juice" (wine) and then sexually molested them.

What do you need to be convinced? Video tape?