I would never personally let my child sleep in a bedroom with a grown man that wasn't a trusted family member. You'll get no disagreement from me when you say it isn't a normal adult thought process, and it's really weird. However, I do take into account that his bedroom was the size of a two story house, and the fact that he was chemically castrated as a child. So, I'm in disagreement with the sexual peak aspect of it.

@CriticalCommoner my problem with everybody freaking out is them trying to degrade his artistic ability. We need the separate the art from artistic. This also needs to be applied to the field of science. There have been many amazing people from STEM fields that were completely and utterly horrible people in there personal life.

The only evidence is circumstantial. Also, the vast majority of people think that he paid all kinds of kids off, when in all reality, he only paid one family off.
People also don't realize that at the time of the payoff, California law allowed for a civil trial to commence before a criminal trial was ever concluded. MJ was in massive debt and had the most expensive lawyers around. His attorney's petitioned the court to postpone the civil trial until the criminal trial had concluded, 6 times, and were denied. So, in order not to have to pay for two defenses at once, he paid the kid to go away. Let's not forget, just because the kid was paid off, that doesn't mean MJ was free from criminal prosecution. The criminal trial never happened. These facts matter when analyzing this case

@CriticalCommoner Wade Robson and James Safechuck would like to have a word with you.

@BrunosDad They already had a word with the jury, under oath, as adults, in defense of Michael Jackson.
Their words only prove their willingness to lie.

I agree. Bill Cosby is a bad guy. Why should all the other people who worked so hard on or in that show lose their claim to fame or income source from residuals. They didnt do anything wrong... you can't make it so that these people never existed.

I understand that, but I'm asking the public why they choose to crucify him as if he definitively did it, based solely on circumstantial evidence. Much of that evidence can be easily and simply explained. The facts of the case are shotty at best

@CriticalCommoner how can you "understand" that there's ample evidence for a reasonable person to come to the conclusion that he did things that are wrong, yet argue that the evidence can be easily and simply explained? A reasonable person would discount any refuted or "explained" evidence.

There was a plethora of physical evidence in the OJ case. The MJ case is totally circumstantial. His junk did not match what was described. If it had, he would have been convicted. You are incorrect about that. Also, I doubt that you're at all aware of California law, concerning the civil and criminal trial process. It's worth looking into, but if you choose not to, I have explained it in a previous reply to another commenter. You can read that if you'd like. Also, don't forget that paying someone off doesn't relinquish you of criminal responsibility. The DA had pictures of his dick and the child's testimony, and still chose not to prosecute. That's an important fact that proves his junk didn't match.

@CriticalCommoner - A lot to consider
[mjfacts.com]

I will say that Shapiro jumps to convictions faster than I would in many cases. In this case I am comfortable considering MJ guilty