# The trial has begun. So the question must be asked. Did Michael do it? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2005, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739 "2005-02-01T05:26:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/41 "2005-02-01T20:51:44Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > [Profile of a pedophile](http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm) > Often the pedophile is male and over 30 years of age. I’m 39 and single. Check. > [@](#): > > Single or with few friends in his age group. I moved here about a year ago, and I don’t really have any close friends yet. Check. > [@](#): > > He is often vague about time gaps in employment which may indicate a loss in employment for questionable reasons or possible past incarceration. Well, I was laid off from my last job, and unemployed for six months until November 2003. Check. I may fit those three “qualifications,” but to the disappointment of some profilers, I prefer my partners to be women in their late 20s through early 40s. I consciously go out of my way to avoid kids. In a time where missing kids and disturbing sex crimes take a front-and-center position in a sensationalist media, I just don’t want my neighbors or others thinking the wrong thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/42 "2005-02-01T20:58:56Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > Where he lost me was the interview where he claimed it was perfectly OK for a grown man to share a bed with a child not related to him. It is perfectly OK in and of itself. Only a couple secondary reasons why it causes a :dubious: reaction: Sure, if they suggest it, there’s no ethical problem, but to cajole them into doing so is sort of skeevy. And I can’t really imagine many prepubescent kids wanting to share a bed with a man. The other problem is that if you do so, you make enforcement of anti-molestation laws more difficult, as most pedophiles would absolutely love to sleep with children, and most non pedophiles couldnt care less. But that’s a retroactive justification for making it ethically wrong, since the innocent man himself is not a molester. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/43 "2005-02-01T21:05:31Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > The other problem is that if you do so, you make enforcement of anti-molestation laws more difficult, as most pedophiles would absolutely love to sleep with children, and most non pedophiles couldnt care less. Of course, only insomuch as pedophiles are more likely to be molesters than non-pedophiles. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/44 "2005-02-01T21:25:40Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The LA prosecutor’s office knows. They were found in his home, hidden in a special hiding place where the kid said they would be. Did somebody break into Neverland and write fake love letters in MJ’s handwriting, plant his fingerprints on them and hide them? How did Jackson’s and the kid’s fingerprints get onto the same pages of those porn magazines? They LA Prosecutor’s office has never released this information, nor have the letters been scrutinized. You don’t even know what they say. Words can read very differently if you assume someone is a child molester. I became very suspicious of the leaks we’ve been hearing when they characterized a book of photos by famed photographer Bruce Weber as child porn. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Typical demonization of the victim. I dismiss it out of hand. It doesn’t explain the other evidence (like why the kid’s underwear was found in Jackson’s bedroom). Read the Smoking Gun stuff. How anybody can deny that Jackson is a pedophile requires a level of denial that I’m not capable of. I have, and I think it is pretty damming, but I have some doubts about how the DA claims this went down. I’m not saying he’s never done something like this. But, this time, it seems unlikely to me. Next, those underwear were not found in his room. They were found in his 6-year old daughter Paris’ bathroom. _HUGE DIFFERENCE_. I have no idea how they got there, but it’s not a open and shut as you pretend it is. The kid could have easily left them in there by accident during one of his visits. If it’s a full bath, he may have showered in there. I can’t believe more of you aren’t taking into account that they accuser and his mother have both lied about similar things in order to get money. His mom has done it twice (once with JC Pennys, once against the boy’s father). Plus, the timeline, and her lies about being kidnapped make question her story further. While I think MJ is nuts, I don’t think I could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. Plus he made Thriller. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/45 "2005-02-01T22:06:33Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > They LA Prosecutor’s office has never released this information, nor have the letters been scrutinized. You don’t even know what they say. Words can read very differently if you assume someone is a child molester. I became very suspicious of the leaks we’ve been hearing when they characterized a book of photos by famed photographer Bruce Weber as child porn. They also found lots and lots of real porn- stuff like _Barely Legal_ and \*Club \* plus a ton of stuff on the computer. Some of what they found included nude pictures of children in non-sexual sitations. You may equivocate and say it’s not porn if you wish, I say it’s just one more nail in the coffin. Are you on MJ’s payroll or something? Is MJ paying people to register on message boards and try to defend him? I heard he’s done stuff like that in the past. > [@](#): > > I have, and I think it is pretty damming, but I have some doubts about how the DA claims this went down. And what, pray tell, is the DA’s motivation for framing up poor Michael Jackson? > [@](#): > > I’m not saying he’s never done something like this. But, this time, it seems unlikely to me. It seems like a lead pipe cinch to me. We can agree to disagree. > [@](#): > > Next, those underwear were not found in his room. They were found in his 6-year old daughter Paris’ bathroom. _HUGE DIFFERENCE_. What’s the difference? It’s still his house. His daughter didn’t molest that kid. > [@](#): > > I have no idea how they got there, but it’s not a open and shut as you pretend it is. The kid could have easily left them in there by accident during one of his visits. If it’s a full bath, he may have showered in there. There will apparently be testimony (and not just from the victim) that MJ frequently makes the kids change their underwear after he molests them so that he can dispose of any potential DNA evidence. He would supply them with new skivvies. The cops found a great big supply of boy’s underwear > [@](#): > > I can’t believe more of you aren’t taking into account that they accuser and his mother have both lied about similar things in order to get money. His mom has done it twice (once with JC Pennys, once against the boy’s father). Plus, the timeline, and her lies about being kidnapped make question her story further. While I think MJ is nuts, I don’t think I could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. The kidnapping is supported by other witnesses, including some Neverland employees and other kids who say he forced them to make videotaped denials that they had been molested before he would let them go. I think it’s really sad that the kid’s family is being attacked like this and I guess Jackson has no other recourse considering those purported love letters. As long as we’re talking about liars, though, considere some of the whoppers that Jackson has told publicly, including denials of extensive plastic surgery and his fairy tale about being held hostage in a bathroom at the LAPD. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/46 "2005-02-01T22:25:48Z")
Odd scenario. MJ is most decidely “a pedophile” from his head to hs toes. The interview a few years ago where the young adolescent boy (now his accuser) was nuzzling up to him while the cameras rolled, was telling in that Jackson saw nothing wrong with this. The issue is whether he is a _criminal_ pedophile. The mother is a small time con artist and hard core grifter, and has been running one scam or another for decades, some centered on her ailing son. She more or less delivered up her kids to Jackson, and only went after his after he booted her family from the estate. [Jackson’s young accuser: victim, or pawn of financially predatory family?](http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050128/1/3q5s4.html) > [@](#): > > Michael Jackson’s lawyers are poised to target the credibility of his young accuser by portraying his mother as a rapacious financial predator during the singer’s trial. > > They are expected to paint the boy, a 15-year-old recovering cancer patient identified only as “John Doe,” not as a victim of molestation but as a puppet of a grifter mother who coached him in making false accusations against the star. > > Jackson’s crack legal team has made it clear during nearly a year of pre-trial hearings that the 36-year-old mother, known as “Jane Doe,” is firmly in their sights. > > The “Doe” family – which includes the boy, his mother, a 14-year-old brother and a sister who live in Los Angeles – has been the subject of intense media scrutiny since accusing Jackson. > > But the alleged victim, a Michael Jackson fan who asked a Los Angeles comedy club owner to introduce him to the star when the boy was gravely ill in 2000, has had a difficult childhood. > > He has battled the cancer that forced the removal of one of his kidneys, saw his parents’ marriage break up and became the object of a bitter court custody battle between them. > > Since his November 2003 arrest, Jackson’s lawyers have alleged that Jane Doe is a greedy opportunist with a history of launching questionable lawsuits to profit from the financial settlements. > > In one of those alleged schemes, they say, she won a 137,500 dollar settlement from a US department store which she sued in 2001, claiming security guards had assaulted her and her sons. > > Last May, the family sued Los Angeles child welfare officials seeking financial damages over the leak of a confidential memo which said a departmental investigation had found there was no evidence to suggest Jackson had sexually assaulted the boy, according to court documents. > > And the Celebrity Justice television show reported that the mother allagedly tricked a newspaper into printing a story in 2000 that sought donations for her son’s cancer treatment which was fully covered by insurance. > > Jackson’s lawyers will now likely try to show that the now re-married woman coached her son and his younger brother to make up stories about Jackson for the authorities in a bid to extort him. > > “She made statements that her children can sue Michael Jackson after they turn 18,” Jackson’s lawyer Thomas Mesereau said in court last September. “She said she is not after money then she says she is after money.” > > Mesereau did not reveal what the woman did for a living, but said she knew how to file lawsuits and had once accused her ex-husband of molesting one of her sons and falsely imprisoning him in Los Angeles. > > Jackson has been charged with 10 counts, including molesting the woman’s son when he was 13, conspiring to kidnap and unlawfully imprison him and his family and plying the youngster with alcohol in order to seduce him. > > The celebrity trial officially kicks off in this small central California town on Monday with the jury selection process, and light will be thrown on the still secret details of the case in opening arguments in late February. > > Prosecutors contend that the boy “thought Michael Jackson was the coolest guy in the world” and that Jackson showered him with gifts. > > The youngster appeared on camera in the documentary “Living with Michael Jackson,” which was broadcast in February 2003, and in which the star acknowledged having shared his bed with children, sparking off the scandal that eventually led to his arrest. > > After the television program aired, prosecutors said, Jackson and his associates forced the alleged victim’s family to take a vacation in luxurious resorts. > > The boy’s stepfather then admitted in court last year that he requested money for the family’s participation in a video made by Jackson aides in a bid to restore the star’s reputation after the documentary was aired. > > But Jackson’s entourage contends that the family took gifts, including a car, from Jackson and that the accusations against him only emerged after the gifts stopped coming ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/47 "2005-02-01T22:42:46Z")
None of that is relevant to whether this kid was molested. The fact that his mother was willing to sell her kid may make her partially culpable but that wasn’t the kid’s fault and it doesn’t mean he wasn’t molested. It also doesn;t explain the love letters and the shared porn pages. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/48 "2005-02-01T22:43:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > They also found lots and lots of real porn- stuff like _Barely Legal_ and \*Club \* plus a ton of stuff on the computer. Some of what they found included nude pictures of children in non-sexual sitations. You may equivocate and say it’s not porn if you wish, I say it’s just one more nail in the coffin. I have not read of additional “child porn”, so I will hold off on that. But, how in your mind does normal porn act as a nail in his coffin. To me, makes him more normal than I ever thought he was. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Are you on MJ’s payroll or something? Is MJ paying people to register on message boards and try to defend him? I heard he’s done stuff like that in the past. Yes, I am. The first 100 posts and 2 years of lurking were just to throw you off. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > And what, pray tell, is the DA’s motivation for framing up poor Michael Jackson? It seems like a lead pipe cinch to me. We can agree to disagree. I didn’t say he was framed. Just that the evidence seems lacking. I’m sure the DA thinks he did it. It doesn’t mean that he did it, nor does it mean the jury will draw the same conclusions form the evidence he did. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > What’s the difference? It’s still his house. His daughter didn’t molest that kid. > > There will apparently be testimony (and not just from the victim) that MJ frequently makes the kids change their underwear after he molests them so that he can dispose of any potential DNA evidence. He would supply them with new skivvies. The cops found a great big supply of boy’s underwear. Where did you hear that he’d provide them with new underwear and that they found a supply of boy’s underwear? Where did you hear that anyone else will testify to that? Plus, underwear found in his kid’s bathroom is very different than if they were found in his bedroom. If you don’t understand that then I don’t know where to begin. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The kidnapping is supported by other witnesses, including some Neverland employees and other kids who say he forced them to make videotaped denials that they had been molested before he would let them go. > > I think it’s really sad that the kid’s family is being attacked like this and I guess Jackson has no other recourse considering those purported love letters. > > As long as we’re talking about liars, though, considere some of the whoppers that Jackson has told publicly, including denials of extensive plastic surgery and his fairy tale about being held hostage in a bathroom at the LAPD. Cite? Apparently during the time the kids were held hostage, the mother came and went 3 times. If you have information that states otherwise, I would like to read it. On your last point, the surgery lie is nothing. I don’t expect people to tell the truth about medical matters. The other lie is very suspect. I think he loses a lot of credibility because of that. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/49 "2005-02-01T22:49:18Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Odd scenario. > > MJ is most decidely “a pedophile” from his head to hs toes. The interview a few years ago where the young adolescent boy (now his accuser) was nuzzling up to him while the cameras rolled, was telling in that Jackson saw nothing wrong with this. The issue is whether he is a _criminal_ pedophile. > > The mother is a small time con artist and hard core grifter, and has been running one scam or another for decades, some centered on her ailing son. She more or less delivered up her kids to Jackson, and only went after his after he booted her family from the estate. > > [Jackson’s young accuser: victim, or pawn of financially predatory family?](http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050128/1/3q5s4.html) I just wanted to point out that if I were a pedophile with a giant play ground attraction with hundreds of visitors and potential targets to choose from, wouldn’t this family be a great choice for me to victimize? ---
**Author:** ![laigle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@laigle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/laigle)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/50 "2005-02-01T23:02:37Z")
He’s a rich weirdo being accused by apparent scam artists. As such, I think it’s going to be up to the physical evidence for this one and I’m going to wait until I see some before I pick a side. Given that I’m avoiding any Jacko headlines like the plague, that may take awhile. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/51 "2005-02-01T23:03:43Z")
> [@Ca3799](#): > > I just wanted to point out that if I were a pedophile with a giant play ground attraction with hundreds of visitors and potential targets to choose from, wouldn’t this family be a great choice for me to victimize? Because before he actually did it someone accused him of it, shined a big spotlight on him, and started an investigation. It’s like seeing a guy acting strange at a store, accusing him of stealing only to find out he hadn’t stolen anything. Then, seeing that same guy come back to the same store and steal moments later. It is very hard to reconcile that. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/52 "2005-02-01T23:45:49Z")
It’s very strange to reconcile a guy who would keep sleeping with little boys after getting busted for molesting one and then paying $20 million to shut the kid up. Love letters Shared porno The kid’s testimony Guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/53 "2005-02-02T00:12:34Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Because before he actually did it someone accused him of it, shined a big spotlight on him, and started an investigation. It’s like seeing a guy acting strange at a store, accusing him of stealing only to find out he hadn’t stolen anything. Then, seeing that same guy come back to the same store and steal moments later. It is very hard to reconcile that. It seems to me more like a shoplifter focusing on stores that have recently lost lawsuits for misconduct by overzealous security. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/54 "2005-02-02T00:18:44Z")
[‘Child erotica’ found during search at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch](http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/012505_dimond_ctv.html) Someone at Fametracker linked to a site which pictures from the book in question-ugh ugh ugh…it wasn’t porn exactly-the one I saw, but I’m seriously skeeved out and worried about my computer cache! ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/55 "2005-02-02T00:25:19Z")
The undies don’t convince me. If the mother really is a scammer, it wouldn’t be too hard to plant a pair of undies somewhere- especially a room the Michael probably doesn’t snoop around in much. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/56 "2005-02-02T00:39:19Z")
> [@Alan Smithee](#): > > > [@Alan Smithee](#): > > > > I, for one, don’t deny that Jackson’s a pedophile. But you don’t go to jail for being a pedophile. You go to jail because the govenment can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed these acts with this child on this occassion. Love letters may or may not prove such a thing. They are certainly evidence against Jackson, but they would have to be pretty explicit to carry the case. Fingerprints on porno mags are more evidence, but they almost certainly don’t prove anything. The kid could (whether he was also being molested or not) have found Jackson’s stash and looked at the same pages Jackson did. > > > > The evidence **so far** is all circumstantial and mostly unsubstantiated gossip. > > > [@spoke-](#): > > > > No it isn’t. Presumably, the child himself **will** testify. That is direct (not circumstantial) evidence. The love letters and the porno mags would lend credibility to his story. > > Emphasis added. Oh for pity’s sake. Your original post suggested that we had nothing to indicate Jackson’s guilt but the porno mags and the letters. That simply is not true. The victim has given his story to the police. He hasn’t testified at trial? So what? The porno mags and letters haven’t been offered as evidence either. Technically speaking there’s no “evidence” at all yet, since none has been offered at trial. What we’re talking about is not evidence, but _potential_ evidence available to the prosecutors. The porno mags and letters (when tendered at trial) will be _circumstantial_ evidence. The boy’s testimony (when offered at trial) will be _direct_ evidence. And regarding the boy’s testimony, take a look at what The Smoking Gun has to say: > [@](#): > > The heart of the Jackson prosecution rests largely on accounts provided to investigators by the teenage boy, his younger brother, older sister, and the children’s mother (at the time of the alleged molestation, the victim, who had been diagnosed with a rare cancer in 2000, was 13, his brother was 12, and their sister was 16). In the documents reviewed by TSG, the brothers appear a potent one-two punch of first-hand accounts of alleged Jackson misdeeds. They corroborated many of each other’s lurid stories, providing the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and District Attorney Thomas Sneddon with a stereophonic sleaze compendium. > > [Cite](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/010605jackson.html) Follow the link if you want all the details of the boy’s expected testimony. ---
**Author:** ![Good\_Egg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/96bed5/32.png) [@Good\_Egg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Good_Egg)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/57 "2005-02-02T04:07:41Z")
Am I the only person who doesn’t care at all about this case? I am tired of all these trials they foist on the television public; what for? To distract us from thinking about world affairs? My opinion is, he is filthy rich, therefore will not be found guilty. Whether he is or not won’t count. Wake me when its over. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/58 "2005-02-02T04:47:58Z")
The underwear doesn’t prove anything. If the kid slept at the house, and he changed clothes, an innocent laundry mixup could leave the underwear in Jacksons residence. However, the other evidence is highly incriminating. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/59 "2005-02-02T05:17:54Z")
I disagree that it’s perfectly OK in and of itself: I have a nephew by blood who’s 12. I am also very close to a 10-year old girl whose parents are essentially family, although not blood relatives. If I ever found myself faced with a seeming need to share a bed for the night with either one of them (even if they suggested it), I would beg off – I would sleep on the floor, or prop myself in the corner. I know my sexuality, but I also know that sleep is not a conscious state: when I’m asleep and dreaming that I’m holding Shania Twain/Dolly Parton/J-Lo in my arms (all three on a good night!), I’m not conscious of who is **actually** in my arms. It would have creeped me out to have woken up to such a ‘reaction’ when I was a kid. Otherwise, I agree with your post. > [@Ludovic](#): > > It is perfectly OK in and of itself. Only a couple secondary reasons why it causes a :dubious: reaction: > > Sure, if they suggest it, there’s no ethical problem, but to cajole them into doing so is sort of skeevy. And I can’t really imagine many prepubescent kids wanting to share a bed with a man. > > The other problem is that if you do so, you make enforcement of anti-molestation laws more difficult, as most pedophiles would absolutely love to sleep with children, and most non pedophiles couldnt care less. But that’s a retroactive justification for making it ethically wrong, since the innocent man himself is not a molester. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2005, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739/60 "2005-02-02T06:18:01Z")
I haven’t really been following the case that closely and am not familar with many of the details mentioned here. But I found the raid on the Neverland Ranch telling in and of itself. I remember watching it and thinking that getting a warrant for an invasion of that magnitude would have to have required some seriously strong evidence. Could you imagine the scandal if they actually found nothing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trial-has-begun-so-the-question-must-be-asked-did-michael-do-it/287739.md?page=4)