Thankfully someone out there has common sense. Whether someone thinks he is guilty or innocent, it's just neglectful to leave your children with someone who has repeatedly faced such accusations and by his own admission invites children into his bed.

I completely respect this position and I do understand where you are coming from, but I can never wrap my head around those who just write him off as a simple harmless man who was a little bit odd. To me there is just too much pointing towards guilt to simple write it all off as being a coincidence. When you have to explain so much away it defies common sense and logic. If he was a gas station attendant rather than a star, people wouldn't give him the same benefit of the doubt. Of course, no parent in their right mind would have let their child sleep with MJ the gas station attendant like they did with MJ the musical icon in the first place.

Sure, he was hardly random, but to me this behavior fits the textbook definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles who like to befriend and "groom" their victims often act like big children at heart to make it easier for children to relate to them and feel at ease with them . They often create domains that are appealing to children so the children would want to hang around. MJ just happened to have a fortune to create a larger scaled child fantasy land.

He had a weird discoloration there because of a skin condition he had. So that was unusual and the kid was accurately able to describe it.

Hey, I don't deny that his mother was sketchy. I believe every parent involved with this was sketchy, but was their behavior was more sketchy than MJ's? Absolutely not. At best his behavior was highly inappropriate and most people engaged in such behavior would sound off the alarm bells. Personally I believe that some of the parents involved like the maid and JC's parents did see dollar signs when they realized what happened to their kids, but I don't believe it was totally made up. I can see why people have a hard time believing them, but like I said in a previous post, MJ has every reason to lie, so I am not sure what makes him more credible over anyone else.

That's true, but he's hardly the first child star, and while many of them do end up messed up on drugs, he's the only one to end up sleeping in bed with boys in a supposed attempt to try to relive his childhood. Honestly, I do believe he was emotionally stunted on some level, but many pedophiles are attracted to children because their sexual development was stunted at a certain point in their life. So to me this can easily be argued as pointing to his  guilt just as much  as  people use it to point towards his innocence. Many pedophiles were also abused at some point in their life so again this can point towards guilt as much as it does innocence.

1. "Basically" does not equal confession. I think he certainly flirted with one and I get your point, but at the end of the day he never actually confessed and has always maintained his innocence.

2. Sure, in the eyes of the law he is innocent. That doesn't mean he has never ever molested a kid. Do you believe every single person that was found not guilty never committed the crime they were accused of committing?

3) LOL they are not sources? They found him not guilty so that's good enough for you to proclaim his innocence, but when those same people who sat there through all of the evidence and testimony has said they think he was a pedophile it means nothing??

4) OJ has maintained his innocence until this very day. No one was in his bed room every single time he slept with a child so sorry no one was capable of backing up his claims. Only MJ and the boys know the truth.

5) It has never been backed up because again no one knows the truth except those that were in the bed room.

6. I understand your point, but it is moot in this case. What you described is something on an entirely different level than what MJ was doing. He was sleeping with pre-pubescent boys on a regular basis. That looks terrible no matter how you slice it and it doesn't really look any less shady than if he was sleeping with girls on a regular basis. Either way it looks highly suspicious. If he was so concerned about how sleeping with young girls would appear, then why wasn't he concerned with the same thing about boys? It looked just as shady, especially after the first accusation. Jacko supporters like to say he was naive and didn't know he was doing anything wrong, then the same should have applied to females as well. You can't have it both ways. If he was this naive child-like man who just loved children then the same should have applied to ALL children. Yet he only targeted boys in a specific age range.

7) The allegations are part of the story, sure, because that was a part of his life no one can ignore, but people are treating him as if it was an afterthought.

8) I gave you facts and you can spouting nonsense.

9) He is an officer of the court. His job is not to provide evidence outside of the court and I am sure the evidence remains in storage like every other case.

10) Sure, but the optics of having an alarm system when you sleep with boys in your room look bad no matter how you spin it.

11) If it killed their case and it was so weak then why would an innocent man give money to those who are trying to extort him? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Walked in on him taking a leak LOL, yes so everything is just one huge coincidence. He's some man who had this weird obsession with sharing his bed with boys, had books of nude boys, was accused of molesting boys, settled with his accusers, and one of his accusers was able to describe his genitals but it's all one huge coincidence. He's totally harmless, man!

12) As I mentioned in my previous post that I was mistake on this point, but again if you are an innocent man who is winning a case then the last thing you do is settle unless you have something to hide. Settling does more harm than good and any lawyer worth his salt would explain that. Heck anyone with common sense who had a reputation to protect understands that.

13) Sure, that's what a good lawyer does, but what lawyer says you have to delay it because you may have to plead the 5th if you are innocent? It wasn't Cochran who did that BTW

14) Jason Francia, the handsome son of a former personal maid at Neverland, was the only young man to come forward and tell the jury that Michael Jackson had molested him, beginning when he was seven. After five years of therapy, the devout evangelical Christian said, he now works as a mentor to troubled young people and as a salesman of auto parts. He was 17, he said, when he learned that his mother, Blanca Francia, had agreed to a $2.4 million settlement with Jackson over three allegations of fondling him, and he had found out only two days prior to taking the stand that she had sold her story to tabloid TV for $20,000.

The link to the article is in my original post.

15) Common sense.

16) Most celebrities are not convicted or get off with a slap with a wrist. There is no doubt the celebrity plays a factor see Simpson, O.J.

My rebuttal

Yeah, that was MJ's defense of the books, but do you think he is going to be truthful about it?  Why would a fan send him such a book and why would it remain in his house? You may say well maybe he didn't look at his gifts, but I am sure he had employees that went through everything that came through the house so again why would it remain in his house? Normal people would be disgusted by such a book and wouldn't want it lying around the house. I'm sure you wouldn't find such a book in any other celebrities house. Yet a book of nude pre-pubescent boys shows up in the home of the man who sleeps with pre-pubescent boys. Gee, what a shocker and a coincidence.

8) It was every night for 30 days as was testified. No one said his parents weren't guilty of bad judgment. Clearly they were just as guilty as MJ because as I said no one would have let their child sleep with him if he was a nobody, but they were blinded by the glitz, glammer, money, and gifts. That's why JC has refused to associate with his mother since it happened because he feels she essentially sold him to MJ. And it's not just her. Every single parent that let their kid spend one night in his bed is guilty. So the fact that they exercised extremely poor judgment (to put it mildly) is not a defense of MJ. They're all guilty.

10) Maybe his paranoia stemmed from the fact that he had something to hide.

11) I'd like to see the proof where it happened under sedation. He told a psychiatrist, lawyers, law enforcement, and prosecutors. That doesn't seem forced and his story was consistent each time. Moreover, he was able to accurately able to describe MJ's genitals which prompted MJ to immediately settle.

12) You are right, my mistake. I didn't realize she was in his life at that point. However, I don't think any innocent person would settle against such accusations just because a friend/lover encouraged them to do so. If you have nothing to hide and people are trying to extort you as you claim, then why would you give into their extortion? Such as settlement would forever cloud him in suspicion and would make him vunerable to more extortion attempts in the future. It's not exactly in your best interest to settle there unless you're guilty and want to make it go away.

13) Correct, but he wasn't the one handling the civil case that settled to my knowledge

14) Actually her son did testify at the trial that he was molested by MJ and had been in therapy for 5 years afterwards. Again if you are so innocent why give into someone's extortion? Why not have her prosecuted or sue her? There was also an audio tape of MJ's goon begging her not to go to the authorities.

15) Yeah, him. There was quite a bit written about him in those articles and about how employees were terrified to talk because of him and how he intimidates people. Also people involved in the case received threats. Even JC and his family. JC wanted to be protected and he wasn't.

16) Sure he was, but he wasn't found innocent on all charges. Not guilty = they were unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't necessarily prove someone's innocence. I don't see how his celebrity wasn't a factor. Do you honestly think anyone would accept an average joe who liked to sleep with boys? No way, it's absurd. At least one of the jurors was a fan of his and another went to Neverland as a kid. Could it be that they were biased from the start?

So Maureen Orth would only be a great source if she would have said "He was a true icon. This is a terrible tragedy and the world is an emptier place without him?" Get real, it doesn't make her any more biased than the loonies who can't get enough of MJ. Did it ever occur to you that she came to the conclusion while researching for her articles since she actually spoke to people involved in both cases? I don't think she set out with an agenda.