Is Michael Jackson really "Bad"?

OK.

So the buzz of the year is, "Did Michael Jackson molest that boy?" In fact, people are also asking, "is it possible that Michael Jackson molested the boy from before?" They assume that, since he paid the last boy off, it's an admission of guilt. They also assume that just because Michael Jackson enjoys the company of children, he must be a pedophile. And they ask me what I think. I'd have to say I get asked the question roughly 4 times in a given day by a variety of folks who are rather disquieted at my reply.

Simply put - I don't think he's fully guilty.

Yes, you heard me. I don't think he's fully guilty. By that, I mean that I think there are things he did that were inappropriate, even illegal. I do NOT, however, believe he molested that boy. I can back up what I believe with the following:

1. The daughter not only lied herself, she admitted that her mother lies;
2. The brother lied, on numerous occasions. First off, it's VERY hard to mess up boxers and briefs. They are two different things. A 13-year old boy is more than likely not wearing boxers, he's probably wearing briefs, but let's assume he wanted to be grown. The brother said once that MJJ had his hand down the accuser's pants. Then he said MJJ's hand was on top of the accuser's pants. Then he said MJJ's hand was down the accuser's briefs, then he said boxers. All during Mesereau's cross-examination (and by the way, if I ever get in a scuffle, I'd love to have this guy on my team.)
3. The accuser stated that Michael gave him wine. He also stated that it smelled like "rubbing alcohol". I know from personal experience that he was referring to vodka; however, there is a strong difference between vodka and wine. The accuser said he took the drink and just swallowed it in one gulp from the Diet Coke can. No. Impossible. For one, you can't just drink the entire contents of a Diet Coke can with "one gulp" due to the fact it's in a can. Two, the strength of the alcohol content in vodka prevents you from running shot with a can's worth. Your throat would be so jacked you couldn't even speak. Three, the boy stated he thought it was water. Bull, since the smell will reach you long before the can does, not to mention it would be illogical to have water in a Diet Coke can. I believe this was very carefully scripted and the boy coached on exactly what to say.
4. The accuser's family is charing MJJ with attempting to imprision them, preventing them from leaving. If this is case, how did they get out the one time, only to turn around and come back to be "imprisioned" again?
5. The only two accusers of molestation in the entire span of time MJJ has had Neverland running (2, for the record) were both from broke, low class families. All of the children who made something of themselves (Macaulay Caulkin, Wade Robson, Emmanuel Lewis) say that MJJ didn't do anything to any of them. Know why? Because the families want to get paid. They know MJJ is a mark. They know MJJ is a softie. They read up on the case or talked to the previous DA that won the settlement and found exact details of what they needed to do. Then, they decided to try to muscle cash out of the King of Pop. Pure and simple. Jay Leno himself tried to get scammed by this same family, for the same cancer pity speech. Unfortunately, it didn't work, because they had nothing to use against him: Leno doesn't like the company of children.

With all that said, I don't believe MJJ molested that kid nor gave him alcohol. The facts presented do not make sense, and these are actually the family's testimonies. They all have been carefully scripted to say certain things certain ways, and there is no truth or validity about any of it. If these events really happened the mother would have put a stop to it long ago. A mother can tell when her kid is plastered, and if this kid really did down a 6 x 2 can worth of vodka, he should have been at slobbering status. Assuming he was, the mother chose not to act. That makes her negligent, and there is no proof to back up the claim that MJJ gave that liquor to the kid.

"But you said not fully guilty!" Yes I did, and I applaud you for your memory. By that, I mean that I DO think MJJ was sharing porn mags with the kids. Why do I think that? It's the one part of this whole trial that is not getting much focus. Sure, Sneddon did a little bit of questioning about the briefcase and such, and Mesereau did do some cross examination of the brother to catch him in a lie, but it was not as deep as the alcohol when, in my opinion, the porn mag is a more serious issue. For one, showing porn to an underage child is illegal. MJJ's prints as well as the kid's were on one of the mags. The kid's prints being on the mag means the kid saw the mag. Which means the kid looked at the mag. Which means MJJ is guilty of that, because if it was in a briefcase somewhere, the kids (unless they're just that good at searching) would not have known where that case was stashed. Someone had to pull it out for them. That someone could only have been Jackson.
Assuming what I think is true, showing porn to anyone has the potential to arouse sexual feelings in that person. Curiosity is a certainty. It's entirely possible, and believable, that in the process of seeing porn, possibly for the first time, the kid may have become curious, and regardless of who initiated it, that could lead to some level of molestation, even if benign.

So...having stated all of this, here is what I believe happened.

1. Child meets MJJ.
2. MJJ finds a common bond with the boy after hearing that the boy also did not have a good relationship with his father (the boy's father attempted molestation)
3. MJJ meets the mother, the mother is at first apprehensive, but realizing the possibility of a good life at MJJ's expense, goes along for the ride.
4. MJJ and the boy are close friends, and he feels safe with MJJ, so much that he feels acceptable calling him "Daddy".
5. Mother learns that MJJ allows the boy to sleep in his bed and is again uncomfortable until she is told that MJJ sleeps on the floor, not in the bed, when someone else is sleeping there.
6. Mother finds out, either through reading or perhaps even a meeting with that DA, about the previous molestation case that was settled. She gets dollar signs in her eyes at the prospect of another settlement. Knowledge that children sleep in his bed is golden.
7. Mother explains situation to the boy, who doesn't want to rat out his friend. The brother, however, does, and somehow gets the boy to go along with it.
8. Martin Bashier interview happens at just the right time. Boy pretends to be perfectly friendly with MJJ, long enough for MJJ to reveal the fact about his willingness to let children sleep in his bed.
9. Boy gets curious, and asks about "the birds and the bees". MJJ, not really knowing how to explain it, offers to illustrate instead, and shows the porn mag.
10. Brother finds wine cellar, alerts boy, and together they go down to "take a look". Finding nothing but alcohol there, the brother encourages the boy to "take a sip and see what it tastes like". Boy is hesitant at first but then concedes. After all, this is all part of mother's plan.
11. Rebuttal video is orchestrated by MJJ, who does not actually script what to say, but pleads with the family to simply solidify the point that nothing sexual or inappropriate happens at Neverland. The rest is the family's discretion.
12. Mother talks to a lawyer to find out her rights, going on the assumption of a molestation case. The accusation begins.

As you can see, I have a somewhat different view of events, but I seriously don't think MJJ would have laced the kid with alcohol nor do I believe that MJJ would have been jerking the kid off or rubbing him inappropriately or in inappropriate areas or whatever. I just don't accept it. Not solely because it's not in MJJ's nature, but because the testimonies are illogical. The stories keep changing, and all the while, the one witness who could exonerate Michael is exercising his rights as a reporter - yes, Martin Bashir, for Martin was the one who lived with Michael during the exact time that the alleged crimes started. Martin knows. He knows exactly what did or did not go on. His testimony would tell the truth (if he himself were truthful), and he chooses not to provide it. So then my question to Mr. Bashier is, are you testifying because you want to protect Michael? Or are you refusing to testify so you can get your share of whatever profit might come out of MJJ's conviction? It seems to me that a man who has evidence or eye-witness testimony to set a man free and believes him to be free would do everything possible and within reason to see that the truth is revealed, but not Martin Bashir. So I'll reserve judgment.

In any case, those are my thoughts. Post away.