I thought the boogie ended up taking the blame?



Sorry.

Impossible to actually know the answer for 100% certainty, but he was cleared by a court.

so was O.J Simpson.... and he wrote a book describing how he did it... if he did it.

we will never know. But i honestly think Mj was incapable of actually having a sexual relationship with anyone.. His children are all I.V.F.. i don;t believe the story of the love child... i just can't see how it happend.

I'm very much of the opinion that he was innocent. He was just trapped in a very childlike state his whole life and so he did things that didn't seem appropriate for an adult, such as sleep in the same bed as other people's children, but I certainly don't think it was a sexual thing. The fact is, on both occasions he was acquitted, and all the jokes where Michael Jackson stands in for all paedophiles are lazy and easy jokes to make, since all they amount to is:

What was Michael Jackson's favourite thing in the world?
Sexually abusing children!

What did Michael Jackson say to the little boy?
"Take down your pants, turn around and bend over so I can put my penis inside your anus."

What's the most powerful hose in the world?
Michael Jackson's penis ejaculating at the mere sight of children or child related paraphernalia.

I'm not sure, but settlement should not imply guilt, especially where the ongoing case would have been costing so much in term of money, time and energy that it had brought his career to a standstill.

I think he was innocent. As was said by someone here and I also had this arguement at work with someone who thought he did it and about the settlement, settlement is not an indication he was guilty...it is far easier to settle out of court than it is to waste time and money sitting through a long and lengthy court case. It was a big problem for Jackson so it was easier to pay out of court money to end the issue, as far as i see it.

Well, generally in these situations the burden of proof is upon the party making the abnormal accusation. And certainly the accusation that MJ touches kids is much more abnormal than the suggestion that he doesn't, and beause of the system of law in our nations (innocent until proven guilty), MJ is innocent unless someone provides convincing evidence to the contrary.

I think it's highly unfair to call the child an 'it'.

In my opinion, he's innocent, only guilty of not having a proper childhood due to performing so much, and wanting to experience what childhood was really like. I think it's sad that this is one of the main things Michael Jackson will be remembered for.

you got it pretty wrong, my friend.

Well, I'm not really sure. What would the children get out of accusing him of things like that if he didn't do it? Money, sure, but forever he'd be known as the kid 'that got touched up by michael jackson'. I'm not sure, theres something fishy about it, but yeah i just think he was a little bit weird.

Yeah, but could you really do that to your kid? Well, I guess they did but still that's just abuse by themselves.