By in Entertainment

Michael Jackson - Innocent until proven guilty

Michael Jackson was undoubtedly one of the best musical artist/entertainers. But in the middle of his career there was some controversy. There were charges claimed that he had molested children. I followed this story from day one and never once believed him to be guilty. But there were circumstances that made it look as if he were. But was he?

The law says you are innocent until proven guilty. Michael was never proven guilty in any case. The first case some believed he was guilty because he paid off the person that claimed it. This is actually common in business to pay off someone who is creating bad publicity. Often time managers will tell their clients to pay it off so that it will go away and hopefully be a thing of the past. Unfortunately for Michael it didn't become a thing of his past. He was soon brought up on another claim.

The next claim was not paid off and was taken all the way to the court. I believe this is where if he were guilty it would have come out. But no, it was not said that he was guilty. In fact the jury found him "Not Guilty". So by the law he is innocent. If there wasn't enough evidence to prove it in court I don't believe he was guilty. Usually if someone's guilty of something it doesn't matter how famous they are, they still will get charged. But all the evidence was circumstantial.

Some say that unless he was a perv why else would he have a life surrounded by children. There is no medical diagnosis, but many believe that had he been tested Michael would have been considered to have Asperger's Syndrome. People with Asperger's, not all, but most, are commonly seen hanging around young children. The bond between Aspies and children is something that has been stereotyped more than it has been studied. In fact if you listen to the criminal profile of a sexual predator on Criminal Minds you will notice that a good bit of the profile is things some Aspies do. It's not that Aspies are sexual predators, it's that they create strong bonds with children, and are not very social with others if at all. It's that they mainly watch movies with kids. Things of this sort can point to either a sexual predator or an Aspie. If people would take more time to study this rather than to stereotype this there might be some answers. But if Michael was an Aspie that means he didn't understand why people cared that he hung around kids, like a lot of Aspies do. Also he would have had no sexual intentions. Most Aspies have little to no sex drive about anything or anyone.

Whether you take it from speculation by doctors that Michael was an Aspie or you take it from the law, either way it can be said that Michael Jackson was innocent. The law says innocent until proven guilty. He was never proven guilty and there isn't a thing anyone could say to make me believe he was.

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.


Soonerdad3 wrote on March 19, 2015, 7:18 AM

Oh please, these days almost no one is afforded "Innocent until proven guilty" especially with the social media and lame main stream media. The court of public opinion is given much more credence when it comes to the guilt or innocence of people today.

LeaPea2417 wrote on March 19, 2015, 10:21 AM

I totally agree with you. I have never thought he was guilty. He said in interviews that he never had a childhood because he was always pushed by his parents to sing in the music business. I think he always wanted to experience his childhood even into his adult years since he was robbed of it as a kid. He was like a Peter Pan and as a result, he wanted to be with kids, he wanted to play with them, not sexually abuse them. It still depresses me to think about how he died.

ohmisterwilson wrote on March 19, 2015, 5:24 PM

I agree with you LeaPea2417. There are all kinds of YouTube videos that prove it to me even more. One is Macaulay Culkin's interview on Larry King. Another is Michael Jackson's mom saying "If someone hurt your child would you want money? No, you'd want that person to suffer."

JohnRoberts wrote on March 20, 2015, 10:49 AM

In this case, the man has passed away and it serves no purpose debating what he may or may not have been guilty of. There are far more contemporary pressing issues to consider.