After learning who were his bosses and who control the music industry... No. Once Michael started talking about certain things, a campaign to damage his reputation began. If they cant control you, they would destroy you.

Nope!

Yes, he had CP books that a pedophile would have at the time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/16cx722/did_investigation_really_find_books_that_would/

I've always deemed it "possible, but unproven." There's no way to know for sure.

All we do know is that on one hand, we have a popular black celebrity in the 80s who had spent years being hounded by the media ("Does Wacko Jacko have the Elephant Man's bones? Does he have a shrine to Elizabeth Taylor? Does he sleep in a hyperbaric chamber? Is he bleaching his skin?"). They were always trying to tear that man down. And when there was actual criminal charges against him for child molestation, he was found not guilty. He's also had more than a few people who knew him as kids actually defend him and say he did nothing wrong. Some of the people who tried to accuse him of sexual misconduct when they were kids haven't been able to keep their stories straight, either, which raises some red flags.

On the other hand, he did himself no favors. He was a profoundly weird man with some obvious issues (having an awful childhood like he did will do that to you), and he really had no business having kids over for things like sleepovers or really much of anything. It's not normal for a grown man to want to hang out with kids, even if the desire to so has nothing to do with pedophilia. Thinking he may have likely done sexually inappropriate things is to be fair not an unreasonable assumption to make.

All we really have at the end of the day are conflicting accounts that are pure hearsay. Some people may believe in "trial by documentary," but I don't. I believe in trial by jury, and this wasn't something where guilt was painfully obvious like the cases of Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Harvey Weinstein, or Jeffrey Epstein. It's just a big question mark. Jackson has been dead and buried for years, and we'll probably never know for sure. Yeah, not knowing for sure definitely sucks, especially if you are or were a fan of his. I sure don't like unanswered questions. But there will always be gaps in our knowledge. Some things just can't be conclusively proven one way or another. That's life. But the man is dead now, and he is well past the point of being able to benefit from people still buying his records even if he was guilty.

You can answer the question by first answering another question: Was Michael Jackson ever accused by a credible person who didn't want millions of dollars?

If your children were sexually abused, would your first thought turn to how big a settlement could be?

The events of the past few years have surely only enhanced the arguments for Michael Jackson's innocence. Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, Diddy, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Saville - all predators who had victims that were sincere, credible, and didn't want a penny. And in the end the respective cases for all of their guilt were overwhelming (tragically, Jimmy Saville never lived to face the consequences of his horrific actions).

In the case of Michael Jackson, however, he had "victims" who only ever equated justice with millions of dollars.

I find it highly creepy that a a dude just "enjoyed" to be around many children which weren't his own or from family members. I also like children but I don't want to play with those from "random" people. That already is super weird to me.

But I'm still not sure if he really did something to some of them or not. Maybe he was just a creep but could still hold back to do the really bad stuff.

With those two books I'm really not sure. One book was signed by someone else if I'm not wrong so that he got it from some fan or something. The other was signed by himself talking about how those boys are so happy in the book and how he would have loved to have such a childhood himself. So it wasn't really about "damn those boys" but about reminding himself what he missed and how life should be for children.

But that could then again mean that Michael wasn't such a creep but only wanted to allow other children to have the best time of their life because he never had such a time.

It's truly a weird case and nothing seems to be for certain.

Guilty of being a super creepy weirdo for sure. No doubt about it.
Guilty of abusing minors? I dont know about that, the more i read about the case the less convinced i am.

I don't see an issue with people wanting money from the man that raped there children. We know for a 100% fact that he spent a lot of time with all of his accusers. That he slept in the same bed as his accusers. That he spent time alone with the accusers without adults present. We know that he had nude photos of minors in his home. We know that a child was able to accurately describe his penis. We know that in the late 70s he showed an interest in cultures that allow marriage between a 10 year old and 30 year old. We have a letter that he wrote to a child where he says how in love he is with her. We have witnesses that worked for him say they saw him do it. There are real photos of him with his arms around half naked children. Semen stains in his room not belonging to Michael. Pornographic material with accusers fingerprints on them. Corey Feldman said he showed him porn when he was a child. Etc.

The man showed so many signs of being a pedophile, I just cannot understand how anyone could say he was definitely not guilty. I can understand not being sure. I'm genuinely shocked so many are voting no here. I assumed I don't know would have been the most popular answer.

I don't think he was guilty. I do think he was on the spectrum, likely autistic.

I don't think so, I think he was just innocent. A pure soul, I'm not even really a fan so I have no skin in it but I just get the sense that he had an innocent mind and wanted a childhood he never had. I don't think it was in him to be a monster.