And there you go – Cronus and I basically agreeing on something – albeit from different levels of knowledge/understanding.

Maybe it's Michael magic at work.

As I've mentioned – families sending their children to stay with him, after the first rumours/allegations, stinks for mine.

I don't think anything about it can be known 'for sure' (except by a handful of people). I'm inclined to believe that an innocent man doesn't fork out several million quid to buy the silence of a person making a malicious allegation of child abuse, however.

Dammit.

Altogether now, "Heal the world...."

A female jury member giving an interview afterwards said she voted not guilty because the prosecutor had shifty eyes. Only in America.

Because it's the very worst thing you can accuse a man of. If someone made such an allegation about me and I was loaded, I'd use every penny at my disposal to clear my name. I certainly wouldn't consider lining the pockets of those making the malicious allegations.

As you and others point out, there are other factors of the cases that look just as bad for the parents involved, so it's far from clear cut. If I had to say one way or the other, my gut feeling would be that he was involved in some inappropriate physical contact with children.

This is a man who climbed into bed with kids and offered them his "jesus juice". He's not exactly known for his judgement.

Not that I'm trying to convince you. It's a perfectly reasonable position. A friend of mine, who was a victim of child abuse, is convinced for exactly the same reasons you are.

I just think that someone who was, in many, many ways, very immature, might think that it was a way to buy less trouble.



I think we're lucky, in this discussion, to have Cronus able to provide us with far more real insight than most other discussions of this nature will have. I think the guy was bonkers – and you've been around here long enough to know that I certainly don't take child abuse lightly (not that I'm saying you're saying that, incidentally!).

I don't think what Cronus has said could be termed 'real insight'. At best, it's third hand information, the accuracy of which cannot be verified, posted by an anonymous person on a messageboard.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, by the way, merely expressing my point of view. I'm not even totally convinced myself, but on a balance of probabilities, I think he probably has a little more to answer for than immaturity and poor judgement.

Back to the Murray verdict....Wasn't it ironic that the Jackson family turned up appealing for justice, when they are probably the most guilty party in the demise and eventual death of Michael?

For a family to allow somebody to reach the level of mental illness that Jackson did, without actually doing something positive about it (instead, using Jackson's fame for their own means) smacks of pure selfishness and neglect.

His father especially, will always be more guilty of Jackson's death than any unfortunate doctor, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time....Jackson needed a drug dealer for his addiction, Murray was a convenient fall guy.