No, those statistics are REALLY off. It really is 1 in 4 women who are at LEAST molested. Many are actually sexually abused or assaulted. However, it's also estimated that only 30% of molestation victims admit it or come forward about it. It's unbelievably common in today's society. But anyways, moving on.

"And yes, he had enough money to get away with molesting children quite a few times. He had enough money to lure them there, to abuse them and their families. To cover it up. And to get away with it."

Since when does having enough money to do something prove that you have done it?

"He molested children."

Seeing as the jury found him innocent, it turns out he did not. And seeing as the jury had better access to all the evidence against him than you, then it is you who is choosing to ignore the reality.

"You have your opinion, and I have mine. There really isn't anything I can do to change yours, because obviously his music was so great it forgives pedophilia."

Wait, did you just put words in my mouth? Did I EVER say that his music forgives pedophilia? Was that EVER what I was trying to say with my arguments?

"My opinions are based on what he has said, and what vibes he gave off. He fit the profile of a serial molester. He was creepy, and had the opportunities."

Well thank God you admitted what your opinion is based on! But none of that is proof that the guy was a child molester.

"I know he did it."

Many people know that Elvis is still alive, too. Many people know that there are aliens, too. After all, there is so much "evidence" to prove it, right!?

"My opinion is based on his actions, and on the weird creepy things he has said about sleeping with children."

That's not proof or evidence. It is you who chooses to interpret it as an admission to child molestation.

"Do you always trust a courts findings? Are juries and judges always right? In my opinion, they make mistakes."

Unless I have evidence to suggest that the jury was bribed, or that the case was rigged, then yes, I trust the finding of that court and so should you. Even Tom Sneddon accepted the finding of the court. If you are doubting the court then you are doing so by choice.

"It's intuition. [...] There is enough evidence out there for me to know that he did it."

Well thank God we don't judge people based on our "intuition" of them. I assure you, if someone judged you on intuition, you would be seriously pissed off.

"Well the "Speculation" I go off is the nasty stuff that he has said, and the creepy things he does. You can convict others with less than we had on him."

The stuff that he said is not "nasty" by default, it is YOU who has judged it to be nasty because you are filtering it through your preconceived idea that he is a creepy child molester. What kind of society would we live in if we convicted people cause they were "creepy"?

"And no, you could convince me he didn't do it. If you had proof. But no one has proof either way. Most of the evidence was testimony."

Of all the things you said, this was the most ludicrous. Let me remind you that people are innocent until proven guilty. It is the accuser that has to prove something, not the accused. The accusers in this case clearly didn't have enough proof to convict him. HE doesn't have to prove nothing, because THEY haven't proved anything to begin with. If he had been found guilty, then and only then, would your ridiculous argument make sense. Then and only then would he be required to prove his innocence. But that never happened! He was never found guilty!

"I believe that juries have far less evidence than is actually available. They are bound to make decisions only on evidence brought to them in the trial. If I had been a jury member I might of had to find him innocent based on that evidence alone."

I didn't hear Tom Sneddon complain that some of his good evidence was not accepted by the court... And if there was any, then the court must have had some very good reason for not accepting it. You see the courts don't entertain tabloid rumors...

"I can base my opinion on the things I know to be true. That includes things not presented in court."

If there is any place in the world where evidence is scrutinized to pieces then that is the court room. If the court room decided that certain things were not "evidence" then those things are clearly not "evidence".

"I believe them. I feel for them. And now I'm glad for them that he is dead."

The members of the jury have repeatedly told the media later on, how the mother was an over dramatic LIAR. This is the same mother that earlier on defended Michael by saying:

"The relationship that Michael has with my children is beautiful, loving, father-son and daughter one. To my children and me Michael is part of the family."

Then all of a sudden, she pays a visit to Larry Feldman, the same attorney that represented Chandler and got $20 million from Jackson. Note that she didn't go to the authorities first. She went to the attorney that could get her $20 million dollars...

"You just don't have all that stuff, and the accusations, without something nasty going on. No sane person does that! It's wrong and sick. That's how I know he did it."

Every single paragraph of that website you provided can be disputed and nothing in there is really evidence of anything. But if you lump it all in one sentence then you have a very deceiving and dirty context.

"He had books of photographs of nude young boys. Art or not. You seemed to miss that scrap of information."

I also have books of photographs of nude young boys.... Some of those boys are under 10 and they wear nothing but a garment that covers their genitals...

Does that sound sinister? Of course it does. But the reality is that those "books" are my holiday photo albums, and those "nude young boys" are my little cousins playing in the beach. But if I was accused of child molestation, the media wouldn't tell you that they were holiday photos, would they? In the court room they would be dismissed cause they are not evidence of any wrong doing. And yet people like you would be convinced that I am a child molester.

.

I will repeat what Nichole said to you so eloquently:

"your belief that he's guilty despite the fact he was cleared on TWELVE counts, makes you a pretty blind person, by choice."

That's it, I'm done.