You think MJ was guilty of molesting those kids?

Leave all your MJ Thriller-Bille Jean-ABC-moonwalk-kingofpop love or hate at the door.

You think he actually did that shit or not? Based on what you heard said about it...

Absolutely not. Now, his admission of allowing that young boy to sleep in his bed was completely inappropriate but I don't believe he molested him. Somebody should've told him about that though. I think Mike had so many yes men around him, he didn't have anyone to tell him what was appropriate behavior and what wasn't, which led to his eccentricity.

Personally, I doubt it but we will never really know.

Don't know but I lean more torwards yes than no. I think Michael was horrendously sexually repressed by fame, religion, parents, etc. and it wound up exploding with kids. In his entire adult life he was seen with what 3 women (Brooke, Lisa, Debbie) and none of those "relationships" looked at all believable then and still don't in retrospect. I bet he never so much as saw the color of Brooke or Debbie's underwear. Maybe he TRIED something with Lisa but that probably didn't go too far. Meantime he spent way too much time with kids and interacted with them with the frequency that most men do with women. I believe there were probably leechers in his midst wanting to take advantage and grab a quick million. His accusers all look dubious in their own way but so did he.

I could go either way, but the bottom line is that he got his day in court and was acquitted.

Nystyle709 wrote:Absolutely not. Now, his admission of allowing that young boy to sleep in his bed was completely inappropriate but I don't believe he molested him. Somebody should've told him about that though. I think Mike had so many yes men around him, he didn't have anyone to tell him what was appropriate behavior and what wasn't, which led to his eccentricity.

I agree with everything you said. I certainly think that he was so desperate to have a normal childhood, but did it in an overwhelming way because he could with all that money. His time spent with the kids afforded him the opportunity to be one of them. And there were parents who were opportunistic and took advantage of the situation.

I can go either way in thinking he was guilty or innocent. Both he and his accusers tended to look shady in the alleged details that in my mind it's a mistrial.

However, even if he was innocent of child molestation, he was still guilty of very inappropriate behavior. No adult has any business fraternizing with children to *such* a degree that he did. Then for him to keep right on doing it after having been once accused of child molestation (and managing to walk away without it escalating into a full criminal charge) is just bananas to me. After that first boy, he should have removed the train tracks and taken down the cotton candy stand.

It's all well and good to love kids and to want to help those who're sick, impoverished or needy. Donate to hospitals and youth centers. Visit them there. Don't invite them to your home for overnight stays in your bed.

I agree that all sides look questionable, so I don't know. Honestly the first case looked more bogus to me. I have a problem with people who would take money from a man who they say molested their child, instead of pursuing criminal prosecution. LI have an even bigger problem with people who would allow their children to spend so much time with a man who was once accused of pedophilia. Not to speak ill of the head but I do think Michael had major "issues," but in the meantime the parents were starstuck opportunists.

CatEyes10736 wrote:I agree that all sides look questionable, so I don't know. Honestly the first case looked more bogus to me. I have a problem with people who would take money from a man who they say molested their child, instead of pursuing criminal prosecution. LI have an even bigger problem with people who would allow their children to spend so much time with a man who was once accused of pedophilia. Not to speak ill of the head but I do think Michael had major "issues," but in the meantime the parents were starstuck opportunists.

This. My daughter is thirteen this year, and I can't imagine ever allowing her to spend that much alone time with an adult who wasn't family. That these parents were letting their prepubescent kids sleep overnight at this grown man's house is just lunacy to me. I don't care if he was Michael Jackson. That absolutely wouldn't happen on my end. I definitely think his behavior wasn't acceptable but the parental responsibility, or lack thereof, in these charges against Michael has always bothered me more.

I think maybe he crossed "A" line but I don't think he crossed "THAT" line. But unless a video surfaces we'll never know for sure.

I think he loved being around children because he never had a childhood he was singing in strip clubs when he was 6 year old.....what kinda life is that for anyone much less a childhood

I no he didnt do it. No. Mj may have had his faults as we all do and was not like the common person, but he was never a child molester. People who branded him as that and made false rumors had ruined his life.

Whatever the real truth is, only MJ, the alleged victims and God knows. I know is that the first case ended with the boys parents dropping the charges after getting a payoff and the second one ended with an acquittal.

I doubt it! I think he was stupid for saying that it's okay to have children (that aren't yours) sleeping in your bed, but I think that just shows him for what he really was. He was a misguided, sheltered, distrubed child, trapped in an adult's body. But as far as the molestation deal goes, it's highly unlikely. In the first case, the father who apparently was in desperate need of money at the time, manufactured this story of sexual abuse out of nowhere, then settled out of court. Who the hell accepts money from a guy who allegedly molested your kid? NOBODY! The second case was dismissed when it was determined that the mother was an extortionist criminal. Basically, Michael Jackson was the perfect target for criminals who wanted to prey on his naivity. And he was so rich and powerful, people working for him didn't have the balls to keep his ass in check and bring him back to reality. Nobody ever said, "hey Mike, it's probably not a good idea for you to say you like sleeping with children on TV because it can give the wrong impression". Most of the people working for him were gold diggers. Point in case: Conrad Murray (aka, the doctor who killed him).

Ah, a most familiar hot topic of mine.


I say hell no. Let's take a look at the facts.

You have 2 boys who give two completely different stories about HOW they were molested (Gavin and his brother were supposedly given wine and looked at porn, NONE of this occurred with Jordan), and also gave 2 completely different stories of WHAT Michael looked like naked. HOW, when it's been common knowledge for 20 years that his whole skin is blotched, does Gavin say his whole body is milky white and think the jury's going to buy that?

Also, the D.A. wanted to present as evidence that Michael was trying to seduce the boys or something, a porn magazine that Gavin had seen at the house...except that the magazine didn't get released until AFTER they had been there....hmmmmm, is it magic or just a poor attempt of that overzealous gas bag Sneddon to try and get a conviction?

And then you have his mother...who has sexual molestation as her official motto or something. She and her boys get caught shoplifting, and she accuses the guards of sexual molestation...now the funny thing about this is, anybody who DOES believe her when she says Michael molested her boys, will NOT say one word about if they believe she was molested by those guards. Why is that? Is she credible for one account of sexual molestation but not the other?

And assuming she WAS (ha ha) molested, why then would she take her boy to meet a man who's been accused of molesting children? Has she been living in an ice house her whole life and doesn't know what happened 10 years ago?

And then let's take Evan Chandler, the doting good father of the first victim. AFTER he broke the story to the press, he wanted $20M and a 3 movie script contract from Michael...okay, by show of hands, who here would talk business with the scumbag that assaulted their kid? That's what I thought.

And this good father who cares so much about his son, NEVER says one word about an arrest or trial or conviction, no, he says he's going to 'ruin' Michael...but he doesn't bother to take the matter to a CRIMINAL court, only a civil one. And when asked how his son will fare from what he's going to do, Evan was quoted saying 'that's irrelevant to me'. So he's doing this for his son but he doesn't care how it effects his son. And this same good father was later arrested and had a restraining order taken out against him BY his son, for trying to kill his son by hitting him in the head with a heavy weight. Oh yeah, I'm really going to believe this guy had only honest good intentions to look after his son's best interest, aren't you?

And then you have the fact that the police broke into Neverland and took the whole place apart, they found 66 computers in the house, checked all of them for child porn, never found one single iota of that. Gary Glitter takes his one and (I'm guessing) only computer to be fixed, they find over 800 pieces of child porn on it. Somebody want to explain that one? And yes, he had quite a porn magazine collection, but all of women, over 18, so how does that connect to him having a sexual interest in 12 year old boys?

And then what about the D.A.'s witnesses who said they all saw him molesting the kids...but out of all of them, never a single one of them EVER thought they should bother reporting it to the police. In fact they never said one word about it until reporters were paying them for stories where the juicier the details, the more they got paid. Gee, that seems a little odd, doesn't it?

With that kind of evidence, I'd like to know how some people can still be so sure, positive even, that he was guilty. Unless they have a tape or a photograph that they neglected to show to the Santa Barbara Police Department 6 years ago, I'd really like to know how that logic works, wouldn't everybody else?

I don't know. There's not enough for me to form an opinion on. He seemed almost to me like another child in his mind so I am not sure he was even interested in those things.