What evidence? Stories from former security staff and maids who were sued for theft and defamation and LOST? Descriptions of his private areas that didn’t match the photographs? Pornographic material that was taking out of its sealed bag by the prosecution and given to the accusers so they can put fingerprints on them and say Michael presented it to them? Where was all this evidence during the ‘05 trial - Y’know, the one where he was acquitted and cleared in near record time because the prosecution’s case was so laughably pathetic they had absolutely nothing on him?

As for the ‘93 settlement. That’s the ONLY thing you bring up that I can actually understand. Why would he settle if he was innocent?

I’ll tell you why. He never wanted to settle, his ill-advised legal team, his concert promoters, as he was on tour during that time, and his insurance company pressured him to settle because they didn’t want to lose millions upon millions of dollars on cancelled tour dates, promotion, and merch and record sales, in order to fight a CIVIL case that could have taken God knows how long and led to financial losses FAR higher than the final settlement figure was. And yes, I say civil case, because the criminal one was never filed. Because once Evan Chandler, the father of the first accuser, Jordan Chandler, got his money, they ran for the hills and didn’t even bother with pursuing criminal charges. 

Now, if the question can be asked “Why would Michael Jackson settle if he was innocent?” The question can ALSO be asked “Why would the parent of the child who went through this traumatic experience, accept a payout instead of following through with the fullest extent of the law to put this creep away for good and ensure he never hurts another child?”

Especially when California state law at the time allowed it so that the civil case could be filed before the criminal one.

You understand what that means, right? They could have gotten their money AND sent him to prison where he could have gotten the chair, the chamber, or a life sentence! Talk about a win-win! So why didn’t they? That makes absolutely no sense. 

Really gets the gears turning doesn’t it? The only logical explanation is the Chandlers wanted no part of a criminal case, even though DA Tom Sneddon was BEGGING them to file one. Because they knew they’d get obliterated and promptly laughed out of court. Just like Gavin Arvizo and his family did in ‘05. And just like Wade Robson and James Safechuck - Two more accusers seeking monetary compensation rather than justice. And speaking of Gavin Arvizo - when the time came for the ‘05 trial  - The original accuser, Jordan Chandler, was never to be found because he refused to testify.

And as for the "sleeping in beds with young boys" lunacy. 

First of all - They never said he slept in the same bed as boys - Even if he did, that doesn't make him a pedophile. Weird as hell? Absolutely. Pedophile? Absolutely not.
The story was that he slept in the same ROOM as boys. And yes, boys did sleep in Michael Jackson's bedroom... His two-story, duplex-sized, bigger than a mid-class suburban home and had three bathrooms - bedroom. Michael's bedroom was bigger than my entire house. And bigger than YOUR entire house, I'm willing to bet. Yeah, boys slept in Michael's bedroom. So did their parents; Their siblings; Entire families; Many of the Jackson family members, including his own nieces and nephews like Taj (Tito's son) and Brandi (Jackie's daughter) and family friends, including Lionel Richie's daughter. (But we'll ignore her and Brandi, because girls, including his own family or family friends sleeping there doesn't fit the narrative. ;D) They would sleep in the master bedroom upstairs while Michael would sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag with witnesses there to watch them because THE FAMILIES THEMSELVES insisted on sleeping there and Michael was suspicious of them. A bedroom for Michael Jackson was not the same as a bedroom for you or me. Saying Michael was a pedophile because he slept in the same room as boys is like saying my dad was a pedophile because we slept in the same house.

And you want to talk about testimonies? How about that Macaulay Culkin? A guy who has NO financial incentive to go after Michael Jackson - Macaulay doesn’t need Michael’s money, he’s got his own money. He’s doing just fine for himself. He has no incentive to falsely accuse Michael Jackson. He also has no reason to continue to defend him except - GASP… It’s the right thing to do. What a concept, right?! And Culkin’s defense alone completely decimates the testimonies of said former security staff who claim they witnessed or allege he was molested by Jackson. A defense Culkin maintains to this very day. 

You want to talk about emotional attachment? You seem hellbent on maintaining this “Michael Jackson was a pedophile” narrative despite every piece of evidence, unedited footage, and court transcripts resoundingly saying he wasn’t. You never bothered to mention the alleged victims names. You only seem fixated on Michael Jackson. Almost like the accusers in question don’t matter and them seeking justice - Almost like it could be anything else, not necessarily molestation. It could be tax evasion, murder, decapitation, cannabilsm, almost anything else and you’d buy it hook, line, and sinker because it’s Michael Jackson.

And you seem to share a distinct trait amongst all MJ Guilters insist on maintaining it despite all the evidence… A trait where they… They WANT it to be true. Like they WANT these people to have been molested so that they can say “Lol! I was right! Suck it just like MJ forced those little boys to suck his dong! Lol!” And other appalling and vomit-inducing language like that to uphold their belief that Michael was a pedophile…

Which raises very serious and alarming questions about their morals and sanity.

Who really doesn’t want to see reality here?

No offense but I got a paragraph into this pedo defense and then scrolled and saw eleven more paragraphs and nope’d out. A for effort though.

Its ok, you can listen to Thriller guilt free.

For someone who calls himself LudicrousSpeed, you sure are slow and lazy.

Alright, I'll abridge it down as much as possible, to the purist of human instinct so even you can understand.

If you were a parent and that was your kid, would you go to the media and a civil lawyer to try and make Scrooge McDuck levels of hush-money? Or would you want to kill the son of a bitch and leave him in a pool of his own blood, then refrain from doing so and go to the police and a criminal lawyer to ensure that fucker gets the chair, the chamber, or a permanent cell with the key melted?

Or in the case of '93 - BOTH?

Doesn’t have anything to do with speed or laziness. I’d have to have absolutely nothing to do in life to bother engaging a discussion about a pedo on that kind of level.

As a parent, I’d never leave my kid with a guy who admits to sharing beds with kids and has gay kiddie porn lying around. So there’s that. If your defense is that people in power (the parents) did shady things to enable an abuser, well no shit, it happens all the time.

You’ve gone on about corrupt police and lying parents and blah blah. You’re just making excuses for a predator who abused kids. Say whatever you want about me, I am not defending a pedo. I think I come out ahead.