Originally Posted by dooshman
Initially, back in '93, I was convinced he was, indeed, a pedophile. Years later, I've changed my mind on that. Honestly, Hag and Kelly make a lot of sense. If someone raped my child, no amount of money could sway my decision to seek charges. There's no telling what kind of psychological damage to a child something like that might have later in life. Moreover, I honestly believe if he had molested children, just like the case with the Roman Catholic priests, those kids, many who are mostly likely now young adults, would've come out and pointed the finger at him especially after his death in '09. With the exception of those two cases, the one in '93, and the one in '07, no one else has even hinted that any wrongdoing took place.
The thing that most don't understand about a child-molestation case is there is really no hard evidence necessary to make a charge of rape. Just the child's word against the adult is enough. No witnesses, no DNA, no semen sample, just the word of a minor. And if such an accusation were to make it to court, even if there is an acquittal, the label of baby rapist would still remain on the accused for life. I believe this is one of the reasons why Jackson's attorney's decided to settle the first case out of court. The second case was clearly political. That DA was power hungry. He didn't give a rat's ass about dealing out justice; rather, he wanted to use this case as a stepping stone for his own political aspirations.
Think about it, what parent would let his or her child go spend a weekend with a known pedophile? And yet, even after the first accusation in '93, parents by the hundreds were still allowing their children to visit Jackson's Neverland ranch including the lady who eventually went forth and pressed charges against Jackson. It doesn't make sense that the man is what many are accusing him of.
No doubt in my mind he was weird. But that doesn't make one a criminal.
I've never been an avid listener of Micheal Jackson's music, never bought any of his records, tapes or CD's, so there's no reason for me to defend this man except I believe he's innocent.
Guess we will have to agree to disagree, I think he was a molester, and his so called harsh upbringing is no excuse for being a sexual predator, my upbringing was a lot worse than his....but I don't have any interest in kids, and as far as his music is concerned yes he had talent but it certainly wasnt my cup of tea.